Yakov Krotov: Our guest is a psychologist, Orthodox Natalia Skuratovskaya.
Where did your interest in manipulation come from? I have a feeling that in Russia everyone is terribly afraid of losing freedom, of being a victim of manipulation, and as a result everyone loses this freedom, because the fear of lack of freedom turns out to be worse than slavery.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Any fear increases the risk that it will come true.
My interest in this topic arose as a result of my professional experience, including psychotherapy, and on the other hand, from my experience as a secular psychologist and business psychologist. This is what I've been working with, helping people overcome for the last 25 years.
In Russia, everyone is terribly afraid of losing freedom, of being a victim of manipulation, and as a result, everyone is losing this freedom
Yakov Krotov: Have you been working with believers for so long?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Yes, since 2010, when the Church became ready to work with this. It all started when the Archbishop of Kamchatka invited me to conduct training for the priests of his diocese. These priests, who were at my first training, then sought individual consultations, and somehow one after another it happened. Before that, during my 20 years in the Church, I could not even imagine that my professional activity and my faith would ever come into contact.
Yakov Krotov: Now in Moscow there is a psychologist in almost every parish, and psychological literacy is growing.
How do you define manipulation? How, for example, does manipulative love differ from ordinary love? Here is parental love, for example... Or, if manipulation appears, then the word “love” is inappropriate?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Why? All this can be perfectly combined in the mind of one person. Manipulation is any hidden psychological influence on another person in order to get him to fulfill his will.
Yakov Krotov: Does it matter whether this is a conscious manipulation or not?
Any fear increases the risk that it will come true
Natalia Skuratovskaya: For the object of influence there is no fundamental difference. For the manipulator himself, this, of course, plays a role. It's a matter of inner honesty. If a person realizes that he is manipulating, at a minimum, it is easier for him to get rid of it if he wants. If he does not realize, then the relationship will sooner reach a dead end than he will understand that it is the manipulative nature of his behavior that is the cause of this dead end.
Yakov Krotov: Are manipulative practices more common in Russia or in other countries? Can we say that this is a particularly acute problem in Russia?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: By and large, at this level people are the same everywhere. Manipulation is the background of our communication; this does not mean that there are necessarily horrors, nightmares, and destructive consequences for the individual. Destructive consequences accumulate slowly, gradually, because manipulation deprives us of honesty and openness, the opportunity to leave another person freedom of choice, that is, this is a habit of precisely this kind of manipulative behavior. And so any mother who persuades her child to eat a spoon “for dad, for mom” (and with love) is already somewhere and in some way a manipulator.
Yakov Krotov: Should I just order him to eat a spoonful?
Manipulation is any hidden psychological influence on another person in order to get him to fulfill his will.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Wait until you get hungry.
Yakov Krotov: In my opinion, the reference time for manipulative practices is Victorianism. Suffice it to say how boys and girls were weaned off masturbation - by intimidating in every possible way that there is a certain reserve of sexual energy, you will waste it all, you will be lopsided, lame, ugly, you will have acne, and so on. From this, it seems to me, modern atheism largely grew out of this, from this Freud grew up, who fought against this and argued that this should not be done with children. And from Freud’s point of view, the Judeo-Christian religion in its European version is simply a transference to God of those ideas that are formed in a child who has become a victim of such upbringing. God as a manipulator... And therefore Freud was an unbeliever.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: There is a situation when the image of God is distorted, a parental figure is actually projected onto him, and if a child is faced with intimidation and threats that “if you don’t listen to me, I won’t love you,” then this is also transferred to God. God becomes such a frightening figure, whose favor must be earned, sometimes in an unnatural way.
Yakov Krotov: Here is the Apocalypse, the Savior's sermon about the Last Judgment: gnashing of teeth, you will look at a woman with lust - it would be better for you to hang yourself, and so on... Is this manipulation?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Don't think.
Yakov Krotov: What's the difference? This is intimidation.
There is a difference between intimidation and warning
Natalia Skuratovskaya: There is a difference between intimidation and warning.
Yakov Krotov: In general, all this evangelical pedagogy, as John Chrysostom said in justification of the Savior, is pedagogical intimidation. But it turns out that this is not an excuse, but rather, rather, an aggravation of guilt? Why does the Savior talk about wine so often?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: The Savior does not speak about wine very often. In general, in my opinion, the main message of the Gospel is that we are saved by the grace of God, and not because we deserved this salvation by our righteous behavior, not because we were justified by our actions, by the fact that we have never broken a single commandment. And further this idea was developed by the Apostle Paul - that according to the law no one will be justified.
Yakov Krotov: This is wise... Moreover, the New Testament has, to put it mildly, a pitfall, the other side of the coin. There is a huge part that thanks God for the fact that there is peace. And in this sense, it is impossible to understand Christ without understanding that for one and a half thousand years these people really learned gratitude, trust, and openness to the world. Then we will not understand the Gospel, we will have a distortion. And in modern Russian conditions, a person comes to God not from a world where psalms of thanksgiving are daily singing, but from a world of cynicism, despair, pedagogical humiliation and manipulation, where they shouted to him: “You are a goat! What are you doing? Give me a rest!” Is this manipulation?
The same actions, depending on the context, may or may not be manipulation
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Maybe manipulation. You see, the same actions, depending on the context and, above all, on the motivation of the one who says or does it, can either be or not be manipulation. There are purely manipulative phrases, but often we cannot make a verdict on one phrase. For example, a purely manipulative phrase: “If you don’t fast and pray, God will curse you and you’ll go to hell.” The person who says this is misappropriating God's judgment. He does not know how God will judge his interlocutor, but he has already made his verdict. This is about the question of manipulative pedagogy. And church pedagogy can also be manipulative.
Yakov Krotov: Okay, a fourteen-year-old teenager comes to the priest, to such a young man, and the priest says straight-on: “Are you masturbating?” And the teenager thinks: oh, my father is perspicacious... Is this manipulative pedagogy?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Without a doubt.
Yakov Krotov: Is the teenager able to get out of this without losses?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: I think the easiest way to get out is not to come a second time. But this is not always possible, because he does not always come himself; often the family is also involved.
Yakov Krotov: Can a 14 year old person want to be manipulated?
Church pedagogy can also be manipulative
Natalia Skuratovskaya: In principle, maybe, if he is used to it, for example, in his family. This creates a certain feeling of security, he does not need to change anything about himself, he understands this system of relationships. For example, if he is accustomed to earning the approval of his parents by obedience, then when he gets to such a young man, from whom he also needs to earn approval by obedience, he will feel psychologically comfortable with all the destructiveness of the relationship, because this is a familiar system for him. He can repent of this only if objectively severe consequences of the same obedience occur in his life. Or he may not repent until the end of his life and transfer this, in turn, to his children or to his parishioners if he becomes a priest. As a matter of fact, this is how it is broadcast.
Yakov Krotov: In your experience of communicating with seminarians, is there a tendency to teach future priests manipulative practices? Or is this danger recognized and avoided?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Of course, future priests are not deliberately taught manipulative practices, but seminary is the formation of a role model of behavior. And this role model is learned from the seminary teachers, from the confessors, that is, from those real priests who contribute to the development of a person precisely as a shepherd, a counselor. And if these mentors are characterized by manipulative behavior, then it is adopted as part of this role model, and it may not be recognized by either side, but simply absorbed.
You cannot become a professional practicing psychologist without working through your psychological difficulties.
From a psychological health perspective, this must be recognized. When I studied practical pastoral psychology with seminarians (these were not lectures, but training, and some of their own behavioral characteristics were worked out in different situations), each time I noticed this, I designated this moment, made it explicit: look what you just did. Or: let’s ask your comrades how fair that sounded. And they themselves began to recognize this in their behavior. Awareness is already half the solution to the problem. And then they began to make fun of each other when someone took on the role of such a manipulative priest.
Yakov Krotov: Do psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists also have a professional tendency towards manipulation? Or are they definitely warned against this?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: At least they have a better chance of noticing it behind them. You cannot become a professional practicing psychologist without individually working through your psychological difficulties. In principle, you cannot start practicing without understanding your own psychological problems. But in our country this activity is not licensed, so anyone after some three-month courses can go and fool people.
Yakov Krotov: As the ancient Romans said, “let the buyer beware.”
So, the manipulation of love is perhaps the main method of manipulation. They say: I won’t love you if... How is this compatible with the concept of responsibility? How is the love of God, if it is absolute and unconditional, combined with the free will of man?
Unconditional love begins with the willingness to accept another for who they really are.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: If we're talking about unconditional love, then it begins with the willingness to accept the other as he really is. Not to justify and support him in everything, but to allow him to be himself, and not a projection of our expectations. This could apply to children, spouses, lovers, anyone.
Yakov Krotov: How does it feel to accept without supporting?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Well, for example, a person close to us may have views with which we do not agree, habits that we do not like, and we can directly tell him: “Sorry, dear, I don’t like the fact that you pick your nose and go to communist rallies." But at the same time, if Vasya is some kind of beloved brother, then this may not destroy the relationship.
Yakov Krotov: Will this be a full-fledged relationship?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Yes, they can be full-fledged. But a full-fledged relationship is such acceptance on both sides.
Yakov Krotov: It seems to me that in Russia this is the same view of England: a world of individualism, everything has fallen apart, everyone is on their own, talking only about the weather, because you can’t talk about politics, about religion - we’ll quarrel. Everything that constitutes the essence of the pleasure of Russian soulfulness is taken out of the equation. Or not?
In Russia, people for the most part are not afraid to quarrel, they can quarrel and then make peace
Natalia Skuratovskaya: We have peculiarities of national communication, which include the fact that most people are not afraid to quarrel, they can quarrel and then make peace... But sometimes there are no brakes, there is no respect for someone else’s personal space. This is not manipulation yet, but a basic condition for not reproaching yourself for manipulative behavior. “I don’t respect his freedom, but I want what’s best, I know what’s best for him!”
Yakov Krotov: What does personal boundaries mean? Here is a woman who came to church without a headscarf, and a regular parishioner wants to reprimand her. Has the right to?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: It seems to me that a regular parishioner should have more patience and love, and not be upset by other people’s handkerchiefs.
Yakov Krotov: And how far can one go with this unconditionality? The woman came to church drunk, barely standing, but wearing a headscarf. Show me to the exit?
Well, for some reason the Lord brought her in this state... Show her to the bench. If she behaves inappropriately, then maybe go out, but ask her to come in tomorrow, sober.
Yakov Krotov: But the child is a drug addict, and he manipulates his parents, parental love...
Manipulation can involve people in codependent relationships, but can also be used for other purposes.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: This is exactly the case when you can love, but not accept or support his hobbies. Here, at a certain stage, there may be some restriction of personal freedom - for example, to isolate him from the environment. The first step is to talk and help him understand the destructiveness of the path he has embarked on. If the moment has already been missed, awareness is no longer possible, then help him get out of it.
Yakov Krotov: And this will be manipulation: if you continue to inject drugs and steal...
Natalia Skuratovskaya: ...then we'll kick you out. Yes, it will be manipulation. You can say: we are afraid for you, we worry, we see that you are dying, you are no longer responsible for your actions, we want to help you, protect you. We can say this quite firmly, but still the final decision here remains with him. Remember the parable of the prodigal son. There the son behaves unworthily, demands what he has no right to, and the father gives it to him, lets him go with it, and lovingly waits for him to come back.
Yakov Krotov: What is the relationship between manipulation of others and dependence, codependency? There are some similarities, right? It is convenient for the manipulator that the other is a sinner; he can manipulate him.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Manipulation can involve people in codependent relationships, but can also be used for other purposes. But any destructive codependent relationship is based on manipulation, and often mutual. For example, this alliance is a victim and an aggressor...
Yakov Krotov: The penitent and the young man.
The victim doesn't always want to be pulled out of the relationship.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Yes. Domestic violence - here the situation does not always look so clear that there is a villain and there is an unfortunate victim. Very often there is a moment of counter provocation. If the aggressor relaxes and does not show himself as an aggressor, he can be provoked so that the victim confirms his right, for example, not to answer for anything: what can I do if I was suppressed, humiliated, broken... The victim is not always wants to be pulled out of this relationship.
Yakov Krotov: And if a person begins to repent and tries to free himself from his tendency to manipulate, to sadism, then this can help the victim to free himself?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Certainly! Remove one element from this system of relationships, and even if the second does not change its behavior, then all its impulses (including manipulative ones) go nowhere and do not meet a reflexive response, which triggers this entire destructive chain.
For example, in a situation of family violence, sometimes the injured party comes to me, and sometimes, on the contrary, parents who can no longer shout at their children, they scream and are ashamed. Helping a person change his own attitudes, his own attitude towards to a loved one, we cannot change the behavior of another person who is not next to us. Therefore, we help the one who came to us, while the other may not be ready to come to therapy...
Codependency is the replenishment of certain deficits
For example, the wife is the victim family aggression, and her husband is a sadist, and, of course, he won’t go to any psychologist, she says. And we will work not on how to change your husband and his character, but on how to get out of a situation of violence. A person changes internally: we find what vulnerabilities this system of relationships clings to, how we can overcome them, what is missing in the internal psychological space, how to fill this deficit.
Codependency is the replenishment of certain deficits. A person lacks love, and therefore he accepts, for example, aggression: even so, they pay attention to me. And you need to understand what a person lacks for happiness in order to get out of this relationship. When he finds a way to get it in a different way in another place, his attitude towards his partner in codependent interaction changes, and he begins to behave differently, react differently to aggression or not react to it at all, ignore it, get out of the situation: " "You shout here, and I'll drink some tea. If you shout, you'll come back." And the system of family relations is changing. If we are talking about the Church, then the system of relations with the confessor changes.
Yakov Krotov: Well, the Church is still an application to life, and not vice versa.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: It depends. There are people for whom the Church is their whole life or the main thing in life, for some it is even more important than family. And there are people who have nothing else: monks, for example.
Yakov Krotov: Is this good?
There are people for whom the Church is their whole life or the main thing in life
Natalia Skuratovskaya: If it's their free choice, then it's probably good.
Yakov Krotov: So a person will say: “You shout, and I’ll drink some tea,” and he will start fighting, not swearing. Couldn’t this internal restoration of oneself, filling the void, recovery, provoke, on the contrary, increased aggression? The person will see that the other is freeing himself and will go crazy, increasing the degree of aggression.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Yes, during the transition period everything may be like this, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. Sometimes it happens differently: a person, having worked through the problem that involved him in a codependent relationship, understands that he does not need this relationship. And if there are no obligations there, then he goes to drink tea somewhere else. But this is no longer about love. In some cases, this may be a divorce, but it happens that people, having separated for a while, then return to each other and begin to build relationships on a different foundation. Having survived this acute moment when aggression could become uncontrollable, people get a chance to build relationships on the foundation of love, not codependency.
Yakov Krotov: That is, love can develop into manipulation, but the reverse process can also happen?
If there is already love as an open, responsible, honest attitude towards another person, then it will not develop into manipulation
Natalia Skuratovskaya: I would say that it is not love itself that can develop into manipulation, but the thirst for love and the desire to fill its deficit with at least something, some kind of close relationship, even if it causes pain in some way. If there is already love as an open, responsible, honest attitude towards another person, then it will not develop into manipulation, into codependency.
Yakov Krotov: Here I would object. I have seen many divorces, many broken families and families where manipulation of each other has taken over everything, but I cannot say that there was no love there. Love can grow into anything! In the end, Judas, I think, somewhere loved the Savior, and then somewhere something... and in the wrong place.
But I'm afraid that love may end. In love, there is a playful beginning, playful violence, playful biting, playful calling each other names - there is, as it were, such a phase of growing up love. And game manipulation in love also happens, probably. And then it might happen that the game turns into something serious and displaces love?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Love is called so many different things that every time I want to clarify.
Yakov Krotov: I call love any situation when people say that “we love each other.” So they came to the wedding, and the priest asked: “Do you promise to love?..”.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: But this may be love or passion not even for a real partner, but for a fictitious image. "The time has come - she fell in love."
Yakov Krotov: But this does not interfere with love; it is one of its supports in the first stages.
Love is called so many different things that every time I want to clarify
Natalia Skuratovskaya: If a person loves his hallucination, which he projected onto a more or less suitable object, then love has not yet arrived. It can come when people really get to know each other.
Yakov Krotov: Well, the Lord brings people together, and at a fairly early age. Let's face it, he's taking some risks, and it's possible...
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Of course you can, because love can grow from this. Or maybe it won't grow.
Yakov Krotov: She is! Presumption of love! Otherwise, we find ourselves in the position of manipulators. If I don’t trust someone else’s love, then I kind of manipulate the person: if you prove that you love her...
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Why is it necessary to make a judgment about this, invading the inner world of another person, his freedom, his choice?
Yakov Krotov: But we are all interconnected, and if a person asks, then he needs reinforcement, confirmation, this is often the right need.
How is manipulation of guilt different from a call to repentance?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: The vector of effort application. Repentance is metanoia, it is a change in life, thought, soul. And the consequence of repentance should be the abandonment of passions, the overcoming of sins. And the feeling of guilt, if it is neurotic... Sometimes a person realizes guilt as responsibility for an actually committed offense, that is, it is the voice of conscience. It is also worth distinguishing the feeling of guilt from the voice of conscience.
If I don’t trust someone else’s love, then I seem to be manipulating the person
Yakov Krotov: But as?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: The feeling of guilt, destructive and neurotic, by and large, dictates self-destruction: you are bad, you will not improve and will not correct the situation, you are to blame, and there is no forgiveness for you, now and forever, and forever and ever. And the voice of conscience says: you did something bad, you offended someone, you stole, you even killed - think about whether you can correct it or not, you can - correct it, and with this you will begin your repentance, which will consist in the fact that you made such a mistake again you won't do it. If you can’t fix it (well, for example, if you killed it, you can’t resurrect it) - your conscience tells you that you need to atone for it somehow, and think about how you can atone for it.
Yakov Krotov: Faith tells you that you can’t even really...
Natalia Skuratovskaya: You rely on the mercy of God, but sometimes a person comes to the same priest and says: “Father, I took sin on my soul and killed it...” For example, a woman had an abortion: “Impose a heavier penance on me, because I cannot forgive myself and I feel like God doesn’t forgive me either.” In this situation, for example, we can take the path of increasing the feeling of guilt so that she continues to feel like such an unforgiven, a murderer - and what will we achieve by doing this? Let's achieve that...
Yakov Krotov: ...she won't have an abortion next time.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Yes, but she will not be able to give love to either the children she gave birth to or her husband. She will blame, destroy herself, and as a result it will be such psychological suicide. And if you give her hope that the Lord forgives... The Lord forgave the robber, who also had not spent his life piously up to that moment... The Lord can forgive anyone.
Yakov Krotov: The Prolife movement has such a position that abortion is even worse than murder, because the killer kills adults, adults, soldiers generally risk their lives, and with an abortion you kill a completely defenseless person, and this is extremely creepy . And for some reason it seems to me that this is manipulation.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: The way pro-life activists present this is very often manipulation.
One path is to drive her into a feeling of guilt, into the fact that she must now repent for the rest of her life, and still there is unlikely to be forgiveness (well, or she must serve 40 prayer services there for the babies killed in the womb, and then, perhaps, the Lord will forgive her). But there is another way - to say that, yes, murder, yes, sin, yes, irreparable, you will not be resurrected, but if your conscience prompts you to do more penance... And what will change for the better in you or in the world if you do a thousand earthly things? bows for seven years? My conscience torments me - there are abandoned children, help them. You can adopt, you can’t - there is volunteering in orphanages, there are disabled children whom people help, they just come to talk to them. Find yourself something to do to atone for evil with good, if your soul asks for redemption.
Find yourself something to do to atone for evil with good, if your soul asks for redemption
But we do not have a legal concept of salvation, and the question is not to work off the murder - we killed one and adopted the other, and still we will not be able to work off the murder. We hope for God’s mercy, and, realizing the terrible, irreparable sin, we will not repeat it again and will try to bring into life goodness, love, what we deprived ourselves and this, for example, murdered child at that moment. This is not a “pro-life” approach at all.
Yakov Krotov: And then an atheist comes and says: Christianity fosters irresponsibility. Where is the line between irresponsibility and forgiveness?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: But it’s precisely in that very internal change, in the readiness and determination not to repeat the sin again.
Yakov Krotov: This first appeared among the Jesuits. Many Orthodox Christians also studied with them; they accepted the sin of Catholicism for a while, studied, and then returned to Orthodoxy, because there were no Orthodox seminaries. There is a custom there to ask after confession: do you promise not to do this again? There are no such phrases in our rite of confession, although sometimes I really want them to be there. Here is an alcoholic, he has a hangover - “well, never again!”, and then again everything starts all over again. And this manic-depressive cycle often carries over into religious life.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Certainly!
Yakov Krotov: Is it possible without this? How to break the vicious circle?
A promise increases guilt because it is more likely to be broken
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Shift control from outside to inside. When a person is told: “Will you promise not to repeat this again?”, this is external control. That is, promise me, promise God, otherwise God will punish you... And when you promise, you swear to that God who said “do not swear by heaven or earth.”
Yakov Krotov: Well, no, they don’t say “swear,” although a promise is also a form of an oath.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: A promise before the cross and the Gospel! It’s just that in the situation you described, the promise aggravates the feeling of guilt, since it is highly likely to be broken.
Yakov Krotov: And when a person at a wedding says “I’ll take you as my wife, I promise”? Then you find yourself on the atheistic position that all religion is the bringing out of what should be in the depths of the heart...
Natalia Skuratovskaya: No, it's not like that at all! When it comes to the fight against sins, against passions that have taken possession of a person... We all know from asceticism that passions are often not overcome at once, that this is a struggle, sometimes a struggle until the hour of death, and a person should approach this struggle in such a way that “I will try.” not to fall, but if I fall, I will rise, repent and again try not to fall.” But if at this moment of repentance an external promise was taken from a person, then he already has two sins, for example, drunkenness and the fact that he broke the promise. Next time he will come to us twice as guilty, and then he will simply lose faith that the Lord will deliver him from this.
We cannot unilaterally be responsible for life for another person
And when getting married, we are talking about a responsible decision, which is supposedly made once and for life, that is, it is love and responsibility.
Yakov Krotov: I have always disliked the word “responsibility” because, it seems to me, it imitates dialogue. Responsibility is still a type of response, but responsibility in such contexts is some kind of monological phenomenon. If I answer to my beloved, to God, then this is part of some long, decades-long conversation, but if I answer to the law of nature, before the human, psychological law, then this is such rubbish!
Natalia Skuratovskaya: I didn’t mean the legal understanding of responsibility at all, but I meant the willingness to be responsible for each other in all situations, to support the other.
Yakov Krotov: What does it mean - for each other?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: This means that we cannot unilaterally be responsible for another person for life. If we are talking about marriage, then both are responsible for each other and for the relationship, both should be ready to help the other if it is difficult for him. For example, parents are responsible for their children, but only until the children grow up. And when the parents grow old and lose their strength, the children are responsible for their parents. Responsibility is always mutual if we are talking about human relationships, and not about laws (possibly imposed).
Yakov Krotov: It seems to me that where there is love, there is mutual responsibility - it is, rather, mutual forgiveness.
Responsibility is always mutual if we are talking about human relations and not about laws
Natalia Skuratovskaya: Yes, definitely!
Yakov Krotov: And, among other things, the willingness to tell the child: you go, I’ll stay, and the captain will go down with the ship. Love in this sense frees us from responsibility, as from suffering and punishment. In the Gospel, from these pages a very clear character emerges - the Lord Jesus Christ, open, sincere, who at the same time still scares us.
Natalia Skuratovskaya: I don't think he scares us.
Yakov Krotov: What is this then? How to combine the Gospel and this echo of the Old Testament threats?
Natalia Skuratovskaya: These Old Testament threats were present in the minds of his listeners; Moreover, they are present in our modern consciousness, since much of the Old Testament religion was included in historical Orthodoxy. When these demands are taken to the extreme, this is a kind of provocation, precisely designed to awaken the conscience, to switch attention from external control, control of the law, to one’s own conscience, which is often called “the voice of God in the soul of a person.” You looked at the woman with lust - no one will know about it if you haven’t done anything, but you think that this is already the first step towards adultery, and stop. You won't be judged for this as adultery, but they will notice you - stop.
Psychologist Natalia Skuratovskaya comments.
“The priest killed his wife” is horrifying, but alas, not surprising. Family violence occurs in priestly families (and simply in “deeply churched” families) more often than “on average in a hospital.” The reasons are simple: there are, to put it mildly, no less psychopaths among priests than among other citizens, but common ideas about marriage and marital relationships are such that they actually legitimize violence and prevent the way out of a crisis family situation. (Moreover, these ideas are based on a false understanding of both the Gospel and the canons - another substitution, crippling, and sometimes even taking life).
I had the opportunity to communicate with a very young mother, beaten black and blue by her equally young husband (the scion of a venerable priestly family “with traditions” - yes, including the tradition of “humbling” a wife with beatings), and with large families suffering from domestic violence older mothers who have experienced more than one fracture over the years of family life, with broken kidneys, but who do not dare to change the situation. What do they usually hear from their confessor? “Be patient, humble yourself, this is your cross, this is for your own good, divorce is a mortal sin, let the wife fear her husband...”
And where in an ordinary family a woman would overcome fear and codependency, get to a crisis center and receive support and shelter, many mothers will endure to the last - and not only because of the above “edifications”, but also because they are ashamed “defame” the husband, undermine his priestly authority, “bring blasphemy to the Church” (by the way, very often these abusive priests behave completely differently in their parishes - and parishioners consider them “good shepherds”).
In some cases, family violence is not a consequence of psychopathy, but of a situation of colossal pressure in which the priest finds himself due to the peculiarities of our “church system,” and if he does not deal with this chronic stress constructively, then the consequences may fall on the family (which will be “vent” all negative emotions that cannot find a way out)
And I would really like to remind women who find themselves in situations of domestic violence:
1. You are not alone in this trouble.— throughout the country there is a network of crisis centers for victims of domestic violence that will provide psychological and legal assistance, and, if necessary, shelter (even with 6 children, yes). It's free.
And even if you are not planning to leave yet, it is worth contacting the specialists of the crisis center and confidentially discussing your situation - so that there is an adequate perception of both the situation as such, the risk to which you are exposing yourself and your children, and the opportunities to change the situation.
2. If you decide to leave your abusive husband, then first grab the children and go to a safe place(if relatives and friends don’t have such a place, then go to a shelter), and then sort things out, discuss a possible divorce, etc.
3. Your leaving will not “destroy the marriage”(if there is a threat to life and health, everything is already destroyed), but it can give the marriage a chance for salvation (and this chance lies in psychotherapy, in some cases with the participation of a psychiatrist, which will help the abuser restrain aggressive impulses, and possibly cope with those own personal problems that push him to violence). Until the wife leaves, the abusive husband has no incentive to admit the problem and begin to solve it.
——————
May the newly departed Anna rest in peace, Lord, and accept her into Your heavenly abodes!
And help, Lord, those who can still be saved.
Natalia Skuratovskaya– psychologist, psychotherapist, teacher of a course in practical pastoral psychology, leader of trainings for clergy and church workers, director of the consulting company “Viv Active”.
Good afternoon Although there are a lot of people, we will be able not only to communicate in a lecture format, but also to try to do something to resist manipulation in real life. I am a practical psychologist, not an academic specialist, but a practitioner, and I have been working with church topics for six years now. I work primarily in the context of pastoral psychology - counseling priests, parishioners, including victims of psychological abuse.
Is the person manipulating you? Have pity on him
This topic did not arise by chance, it arose based on many personal stories different people, many disappointments. Of course, freedom is very important, but no less important is the love that every person expects to find in the Church. Having read the Gospel, having learned that God is love, a person rushes with an open heart towards this love, this freedom in Christ. But very often this is not what he encounters. Not because the Church itself is bad, but because people who are saved in this Church remain people with all their inherent weaknesses, which are not always eradicated over the years, and some even get worse.
Manipulation is a common background of human communication. Somewhere we are ready to put up with them. Let's say, when trading on the market, we expect them. Or in the business process, in negotiations. The laws of the genre assume that each side tries to shortchange the other and achieve maximum benefit for itself. But there are situations where, according to our inner feeling, manipulation is unacceptable for us - this is the family, and this is the Church. Because there should be places in our lives where we can be ourselves, where we can be open.
Manipulation, of course, often hurts very much, but at the same time, we all, in one way or another, manipulate others.
Manipulation is any influence on another person in order to impose our will on him, to get him to do what we want from him, without taking into account what he himself wants. I emphasize that the impact is hidden. Because if you have the power to command, a person can be forced. He won't be happy, but he'll do it. If we take into account his interests, we will come to an agreement with him - perhaps he will voluntarily do what we want to get from him.
Manipulation is not an order, and it is not a fair contract. This is an appeal to the weaknesses and vulnerabilities that each of us has in order to gain some kind of power over a person. Manipulation can be aimed at different things. You can control your actions, control your feelings. All of you in your life have encountered how easy it is to manipulate feelings. In fact, it is precisely because we have feelings that we become easy prey for manipulators. Simply because we are alive.
Therefore, after this lecture we will not achieve complete invulnerability, we will not live in a spacesuit, because this is not life. I just hope that we will begin to calculate such situations in advance, prevent, not enter into, get out of this contact in time, or turn the situation around in such a way that it is equal and fair.
The deepest level of manipulation is to change a person’s attitudes, replace his goals with ours, manage his life intentions, reorient his life in the direction that we consider correct for him. Maybe we have the best intentions. For example, when we raise children, we resort to manipulation regularly. We ask you to eat a spoon for mom and dad - this is also manipulation, because mom and dad won’t get anything from this except peace of mind. We will talk about the manipulations of childhood in just five minutes, because everything grows from them.
Manipulation is, in most cases, not necessarily a conscious, malicious action when we want to enslave someone’s will. Manipulation, as a rule, firstly, is not realized, and secondly, it is so familiar to a person that he simply does not know how to communicate differently. Because they communicated with him like that in childhood, he got used to it, he learned from his childhood experience: such techniques work, but others don’t work. If I whine, my mother will allow me everything, so I will continue to pretend to be a victim and manipulate her weakness. On the contrary, if I always smile, I will be treated well at home and at school, so I will not show my true feelings to anyone, I will manipulate my invulnerability.
At the same time, this is usually accompanied by some kind of provocations in order to disturb those around them and, against their background, be a standard and example of calm. This is done for the purpose of profit. Most often, this is the simplest way of manipulation, when we can open it up and just calmly say: “You are doing such and such.” We can use countermanipulation clearly and openly, thereby making it clear that we have figured out the game, are ready to play it, but offer not to play.
Another goal is power, not necessarily formal. Power over minds, power over souls is very tempting. And this is something we deal with often in a church context.
Finally, control, which does not necessarily come with power. Power and control can go together, or they can go separately. Very often, manipulation for the purpose of control is not a person’s fault, but a disaster. Because if a person is neurotic, it is simply vital for him to control the situation around him. If you are part of this situation, then he will have to try to control you.
So the first thing I ask you to remember. If we encounter manipulation, then this is not a reason for aggression, for confrontation, in order to give a decisive rebuff. This is a reason for sympathy.
Strong, self-confident, calm and kind people rarely need manipulation. Therefore, if you are being manipulated, take pity on this person first - this, both Christianly and psychologically, will be the first correct step in order to deal with the manipulation. Because anger is not the best advisor in such situations.
The Lord punished - it's a trap
So, what are the types of manipulations? As I already said, conscious and unconscious. We meet the conscious ones, especially in the church context, much less often than the unconscious ones. Because unconscious ones are not only those that a person is vaguely aware of, but also a broadcast of those manipulations that a person himself was once subjected to.
If a person is sincerely confident that if you do not comply with a certain set of instructions, then that’s it, you will go to hell, he sincerely saves you from this, preventing you in every possible way. For example, if you come to church without a headscarf, you will go to hell. Or if you choose for your life partner the wrong person whom your confessor advises, then there will be no salvation in sight, you will both perish.
The one who uses such manipulation, in most cases, does not coldly calculate: “Yeah, if I control the sphere of personal relationships, if I control the circle of acquaintances and all aspects of the life of my flock, then he is completely in my power.” There are still few such insidious manipulators. Usually this is done precisely from the idea of some kind of distortion of spiritual life, in this example - among the shepherd. Although experienced parishioners can say the same thing.
Let me take an example from the experience of a person known to me who approached me. A mother comes to church who has lost her child, is not a church member, and is simply in despair. The first thing she encounters: a kind woman begins to tell her that she lost her child because she was not married to her husband, the Lord punished her, and that if she does not want the rest of the children to die, she needs to do this, that... this and that. This is not because the priest taught them so. This is because such a picture of the world and such an image of God lives in their minds - God destroys children.
The peculiarity of this manipulation is an unrelated message. Does God destroy children in all unmarried marriages, or was this woman especially unlucky? There is also a standard answer to this - that God punishes whomever he loves, so the Lord chose you, decided to save you. This is also one of the standard manipulative influences. But most often this does not happen in the format of conscious manipulation, and such a person himself needs to be helped to cope with the fears that keep him in this trap.
Manipulations can be verbal, that is, verbal, with the help of speech, or they can be behavioral - with the help of actions, deeds, when words are only an addition or are not present at all. For example, if we boycott a person because he didn’t do something, this is manipulation. If every time family members don’t do what we want, we have a heart attack and everyone has to drop everything and run around us - this is a deep neurotic manipulation that has already reached the psychosomatic level. It happens.
Poor health is a great way to control others, which many people use.
To be absolutely invulnerable to manipulation, you have to be dead, because manipulation is based on feelings. Some of them are natural and each of us has them, and some are destructive, and in a good way we need to get rid of them in ourselves. However, this is something that manipulation can rely on.
Comes from childhood
The first and most important feeling is love. Basic human needs - food and love - are what even a newborn baby needs. The manipulation of love is very simple - there is unconditional love, and there is love with conditions: if you don’t do this and that, I won’t love you.
For example, mom says: “If you get a C, I won’t love you.” Or the father says: “If you don’t go to college, you are not my son. There were no fools in our family." It makes absolutely no difference what the son wants, the main thing is that the condition has been set. If the condition is not met, the person is punished by rejection, emotional isolation, or exclusion from a certain community.
Why do I give examples from childhood? Precisely because sensitivity to these manipulations is formed in childhood.
A person whose childhood was full of unconditional love is much less likely to fall for the manipulation of love. Because he has an intuitive confidence that he is undoubtedly worthy of love.
He does not need to prove anything to anyone in order to win this love. He's just good, and he's just loved. A person who was manipulated by his parents in this way as a child is very vulnerable to such manipulation, because he has a different picture of the world, he does not have basic trust in people. He has an attitude: people only love you if you meet expectations.
In a church context, the guilt becomes endless
When we turn to the church context, we realize that the stakes are even higher. They threaten not only with the loss of the love of significant others, but also with the fact that God will not love you. The main manipulation is “God will reject you if you don’t do this and that. If you do as we say, God will love you.” I'm simplifying so that the impact scheme is clear.
The second is “there is no salvation outside the Church.” If you do not do the prescribed set of actions, then you are not Orthodox, we will reject you. A person who comes to church is a neophyte, he is open to everything. Inviting grace and vague searches for God brought him to church; he is ready to believe everything. If at this moment he finds himself in conditions of manipulation, then this manipulation will become the leitmotif of his entire spiritual life for many years.
The next thing is fear. Manipulation of fear is simple and obvious - to understand what a person is most afraid of, and to scare him with it. These are threats from childhood - “if you don’t eat soup, you will grow up frail and girls won’t love you” or “if you don’t do well in your final exams, you will become a janitor and die under the fence.” In the church context, the stakes are extremely high - this is salvation, the opportunity to be with God.
This, unfortunately, is linked to such a concept as the fear of God.
The fear of God is not the fear of a punishing God, who watches over our wrong actions solely for the purpose of giving us what we deserve. This is the fear of our own imperfection, the realization that in the face of God we are open as we are.
On the one hand, God undoubtedly loves us. On the other hand, the feeling of whether we are worthy of this love? The fear of offending God is the fear of God. But more often the interpretation is different, literal: you have to be afraid.
The next thing is a feeling of guilt, which is very easy to provoke in a person, especially if he has become accustomed to it since childhood. If a mother’s career did not work out because she devoted herself to her children, then the mother says: “I live all my life for the sake of the family, for you.” In parentheses it is implied that you must work it out, this is for life. Feelings of guilt are often provoked in marital relationships, because: “Because of you, I couldn’t do this and that, because of you I gave up such and such opportunities.” A person who is asked to feel guilty is forced to make excuses and is forced to somehow atone for his guilt.
When we move into a church context, our sense of guilt becomes endless, because none of us is sinless. An important thing in our spiritual life is repentance. The line between repentance, which is “metanoia”, that is, changing yourself with God’s help, and a hopeless feeling of guilt, when you understand that no matter what you do, it will always be bad, sometimes it is very invisible. Moreover, unfortunately, this is how our modern Orthodox subculture has developed.
The feeling of guilt is actively exploited because everyone has it, and we all know the benefits of repentance.
The next thing is self-doubt. When a person is not confident in himself, it is easy to make him helpless. The main thing is to explain to him more that he can’t cope without you, that he himself can’t do anything. If this happens to a person in childhood, he grows up in a state of so-called learned helplessness: he is not able to take responsibility for his life and make decisions on his own, because life experience tells him that he cannot cope on his own, he cannot do it on his own.
Imagine such a person comes to church, looking for spiritual guidance. As often happens, if a person has psychological problems, he finds a complementary partner - someone who will fill his incompleteness. IN in this case the person is infantile, he has learned helplessness. He will find himself a confessor who will decide everything for him. The ideal option is some young man. For him, this is the ideal parishioner - he decides nothing, knows nothing, is afraid of his desires, afraid to trust himself, asks for blessings even to blow his nose.
If such a person comes to a priest who perceives spiritual guidance differently, then the priest will already have the feeling that he is being manipulated. And it’s true – manipulation by pity also happens. “I am so helpless, I will be lost without you, I don’t know anything, I can’t do anything, so you must take full responsibility for me and on your neck I will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I don’t want to think for myself, and I don’t want to do anything myself.” In this case, the manipulation is often mutual.
The next trap is pride and vanity. I think it is unnecessary to talk too much about this topic. We all know how dangerous pride and vanity are in a spiritual sense, but at the same time it is also an Achilles heel in terms of manipulation. But this manipulation is no longer forceful, but with the help of flattery. If you tell a person how wonderful he is, that no one else can do it but him, that he is special, exceptional and we believe in him, and he is susceptible to such flattery, he will bend over backwards to justify our high expectations.
Or we can take it weakly, say: “I’m not sure that you will succeed, this is only for the spiritually strongest,” and the person begins to prove his superiority over this general mass.
A pity. Don't confuse it with compassion and empathy. Empathy is a quality that I believe every Christian should have. Because it is our ability to share the pain of another person and help him. Pity is always oriented from top to bottom. We feel strong and find the weak.
If we are manipulated with the help of pity, then they appeal to our secret pride: “He is weak, and I am strong, I can help him, I am such a little god for someone.” Manipulation by pity differs from really difficult life situations in that a person is not ready to do anything for himself. He needs everything done for him. Because he himself cannot do anything, or he has a reason, or there is no suitable state, or he does not understand, does not know, does not know how and simply cannot cope without you. If you helped him once, then that’s it, you have already taken responsibility for his future life, because he will be lost without you.
Many people know this manipulative triangle. Manipulation with the help of pity is the sending of the victim to the rescuer. Now, I have life circumstances or I have an enemy who is squeezing me out of the world, and only you can save me. Manipulation by pity is impossible in relation to a person who does not have vanity - these are connected things.
Finally, the hope manipulation. When a person is promised a reward that the manipulator cannot actually provide, and certain conditions are set. In the church context, we encounter this quite often, and not only in everyday parish life, but also in the person of numerous petitioners who come and say: “You are Christians, you must help me, give me money, clothe me, put on shoes.” If you offer them, for example: “Help us sweep the yard and chop wood.” They will say: “No, no, what are you talking about! You just have to help me. Why are you so selfish, why should I work for you?” And here you can say: “Dear comrade, you are trying to arouse my pity, but you yourself are not ready to do anything for yourself, so let’s think together how you can break out of this sad state.”
As for the manipulation of hope, there are different hopes in the Church: there is hope for salvation, there is hope for acceptance, for understanding, for the fact that everyone is brothers and sisters. It is not without reason that they say that in the most difficult circumstances of life, prayer awakens. Because while some false hopes and false paths of achievement are formed, this prevents a person from coming to real faith. Manipulation becomes an obstacle.
We are not vulnerable to all of these manipulations. Someone, for example, is very resistant to pity, but powerless in the face of fear. Some people are easily influenced by feelings of guilt, but they cannot be overcome by pride and vanity. Someone is very afraid of losing love, but at the same time he controls his other fears very well, and nothing else can scare him.
I think now in real life you will train to recognize these manipulations. Let's see what we can do with them.
Techniques of manipulators and protection against them
Briefly about manipulative techniques. What exactly should we do when we encounter manipulation? As we said, information, emotions or behavior can be manipulated. The most common thing, perhaps, in our church context is to mix information and opinions. This manifests itself even in dogmatic matters, when dogmas are mixed with theologumena. And sometimes with some other fabrications, traditions are mixed into Tradition, often not Christian at all, but this whole cocktail is presented as Orthodoxy.
When we have a mixture of information and opinions, there is only one way out: to focus on the facts, that is, learn to distinguish between facts and interpretations, what is actually said and what is introduced by our interlocutor or someone else.
Next comes the cover of authority. This has already been mentioned today - covering with the authority of God, readiness to speak on His behalf. For example, in the preliminary discussion of our lecture there was a conversation about who will be saved and who will not be saved. One lady told everyone that we will not all be saved. Everyone who comes here will too (you will not be saved either, by the way, I’m warning you).
Her position: you should never doubt anything. If you doubt something about the Church, that is, not about the Church itself, but about the fact that there are some difficult situations in the Church, if you start thinking about it, you will not be saved. People often say such things about anyone’s salvation: “It’s God, God Himself, it’s written in the Gospel that those who go to psychologists will never be saved. This is written in the Holy Scriptures."
– Doesn’t it bother people that there are Christian psychologists?
– There is no competition between psychology and counseling, these are completely different activities.
– Nevertheless, there is a psychology course in theological academies.
- Yes. I think there should be even more psychology there. Understanding human psychology helps priests understand, firstly, their own inner world, their psychological obstacles. For example, your vulnerability to certain manipulations, your limitations, fears and somehow work through them, so as not to project your psychological problems onto your parishioners.
On the other hand, psychology helps to understand your parishioners, and not measure them by yourself. Understand that they are different people, with different values, with a different life story, and an approach to them is possible not only in the style of “do as I do, or as it is written in this book.”
We deal with authorities simply, especially since the holy fathers and the Holy Scripture act as authorities. Without challenging authority, we can deny the interlocutor the right to speak on behalf of this authority, because usually what is pulled out for the purpose of manipulation in no way reflects the source.
If John Chrysostom had known that from his legacy many would only have in their heads the phrase: “Consecrate your hand with a blow,” he would probably have taken a vow of silence in his early youth.
Further. A specific language is professional feature. If you feel that the use of special terms, even if they are church terms but not entirely clear to you, serves to make you understand how incompetent you are, switch to the language you are familiar with. In any situation when they try to impose on you a language that is unfamiliar or not very clear to you, retell the same thing in other words.
Narrowing or substitution of context is something that occurs very often. This includes taking quotes out of context and placing circumstances or spiritual advice given to completely different people in a context that is inappropriate for them. One of the difficulties that we encounter quite often is that the spiritual instructions that are now used in the modern Church are not differentiated by addressees. Something was said only for monastics. And something was said in a certain situation.
Most of what was said about cutting off your will and absolute obedience was said about very specific situations. A person who has renounced everything worldly retreats into the desert. He has an Abba - this is not a random boss who was sent to him. This is not like the Patriarchate appointed a bishop whom none of the priests chose, but everyone is obliged to remain in complete obedience. Or how the bishop, in turn, sent a new priest to the parish, and no one chose to trust this priest, but this is the only church in the village. The situation is different when it comes to the freedom of who and to what extent you can entrust your will.
Changing the context here is fraught with the fact that a person is manipulatively given a task that is in principle unsolvable. Now, by the way, they say about fasting that the Typikon was written for monasteries, and how this is problematic for those living outside monasteries. I don’t know, I somehow got used to it, it seems to me that it’s normal to fast according to the Typikon, there’s nothing like that.
– Tell me, please, is lying a manipulation?
– Lying is definitely manipulation. It's so obvious that I didn't even write it down.
– How to resist this?
- Resist? If you know it's a lie, then of course you know the truth. If you suspect that this is a lie, then ask clarifying questions so that the person is confused. When we are dealing with manipulation through distortion of information, the best thing we can do is to focus on the facts, clarify, specify, push, as they say, and not let us be confused. Here our helpers are logic and common sense.
- And temperament.
- Yes. Temperament, of course, is innate, but the ability to deal with it, compensating for its weaknesses and squeezing the maximum out of its strengths, is acquired, so you need to work on it.
For example, if we know that we get irritated easily, there are different ways to bring the irritation under control, including breathing exercises. In any case, the main strategy is not to follow the manipulative path along which the opponent is trying to lead us.
Is he trying to make us make excuses? For example: “Have you stopped drinking cognac in the morning?” is a classic question that can be answered “yes” or “no”, but still leaves you in an awkward position. Or: “You’re a heretic!” - and you make excuses. By the way, in such situations you can agree, or you can invite your opponent to justify his assumption. The main thing is not to get involved in this dispute.
– You can say: “You are right. But do you know to what extent you are right?
– Yes, you can confuse him with an asymmetrical answer, of course. If they are trying to overwhelm you with questions that are asked not in order to hear the answer, but in order to confuse you, slow down. Answer the first question: “What happened next, did I listen to it?”, “Can I write it down? Could you repeat it?"
– What if there is no answer?
- No, there is no trial. You can manipulate not only information, but also emotions. As soon as you feel a strong pull on your emotions, no matter whether they are positive or negative, this is a sure sign that it is time to focus on the facts.
If they squeeze a tear out of you, if they try to provoke you into anger, if you are flattered and you feel proud, tell yourself: “Stop! It’s not without reason that I got this emotion. What does this person need from me? This is the main opposition to the very manipulation of emotions that we have now discussed in relation to the church context.
Any manipulative phrase addressed to emotions is broken by a clarifying question: “Why are you sure of this? Where exactly does it say that if I wear jeans to church, I will go to hell? Are you sure it’s not adorable?”
The Holy Fathers said: “Test every spirit.” Therefore, any pressure on emotions is a signal. Let's take a step back and just the facts. We are not obliged to provide our emotions to anyone in the department, so we ask for specifics with all these manipulations.
The next technique that occurs is emotional contagion. It is known that emotions are contagious. Basically, good way manipulation - to put oneself in such a state that it is contagious or to portray it reliably. It can be delight, it will be transmitted to everyone - and all your words can be taken on faith. This could be an alarm: “Do you know that the Taxpayer Identification Number is on the products in your refrigerator...” There are no such manipulations that work for everyone. This is selective, you need to understand what works.
Empaths, for example, are very easily infected by other people's emotions. On the one hand, this is a good opportunity to understand other people’s emotions, on the other hand, there is a constant risk that they will plant some cockroaches on you. Because rejoicing in someone else’s joy, crying with someone else’s tears is the normal natural state of a person endowed with empathy. And to be afraid of other people's fears...
By the way, escalation of conflicts also very often occurs due to infection by anger. Therefore, if you feel that there is some kind of emotional message that you are not ready to share, you again say: “Stop! What information is given to me along with this emotional message?” – even if the emotion is very pleasant. That is, we separate emotions and information.
Finally, pressure on emotions is all sorts of nonverbal demonstrations, and sometimes verbal ones too. These are insults, overt and hidden aggression, devaluation of what you say, demonstrative disrespect for you. As a matter of fact, those things that are designed to cause your self-doubt, your feeling of guilt. You can naturally resist this by remaining calm. It is much easier to remain calm if you understand what is happening to your interlocutor and why he behaves this way.
In fact, this is an unhappy person who is forced in this way - by demonstrating negative emotions and luring negative emotions out of you in return - to achieve a more or less tolerable psychological existence for himself. Therefore, it is very important to remain calm, understand, and sympathize with the aggressor. He probably had a difficult childhood, when he was also manipulated a lot. Then he had no less difficult adolescence, youth, and maturity. And he is unlikely to have a happy family life, because a person cannot manipulate in one place and not manipulate in another.
– If you say this, won’t it cause even more aggression?
- No, say it to yourself, of course. It was about how to calm down and not break down. If we want it to explode before our eyes, we say it all out loud. But this will be manipulation. We simply hit the patient and bring his anger to the extreme point.
Finally, the impact on behavior. Control over behavior is a very powerful thing, especially when it happens unconsciously, at the level of “you’re sitting in the wrong place,” “you’re standing in the wrong place,” “you’re standing in the wrong place,” “you’re looking in the wrong direction,” “do this,” “don’t do that.” "
It's dangerous when it's camouflaged. Let’s say they say to us: “Won’t it be difficult for you to stay late after the service, otherwise the bishop is coming tomorrow, we need to scrub the entire church three times and start preparing the meal. Some delicious dish, otherwise they won’t have time in the morning.” This could be a normal request, or it could be manipulation.
Any manipulation can be a request, the text of the words is the same. The whole difference is whether you are given a choice or not. When you may be asked, you can refuse, someone else can do it, you can do it with someone else. If a person says: “There is no one else to ask, but we will stick with you until we get everything done,” then this is less manipulation than saying: “Well, you understand how important I have to do regarding tomorrow’s event, therefore...” A very important boundary is freedom. You are given freedom or you are not given freedom.
Next comes the activation of stereotypes. In religious communities this is the most beloved, because it is a distinction based on the principle of “you are ours” or “you are not ours.” “A real Orthodox should...”, “we are Russian, we are Orthodox” - these are also appeals to stereotypes. On the one hand, there is pride, and on the other, fear: if you behave differently than ours, or dare to say that not all Russians or not all Orthodox Christians do this, then we will not recognize you as Russian and Orthodox. You will be a Jew and a secret Catholic.
When you are faced with the fact that you are being assigned to a certain community in order to force you to act in accordance with formalized laws (and these laws may not be exactly what they actually are, but their interpretation, which is beneficial to your interlocutor), here we always take a step back and say: “Stop!” Are all Orthodox Christians, for example, required to attend all services in church, even if they are daily? Should I adjust my work schedule to this, or are there other options?
– Is “to whom the Church is not a Mother, God is not a Father” a manipulation?
– This is often used as manipulation. This is an example of church folklore that was taken out of context, changed its meaning and began to be used manipulatively. Moreover, in defining what “Church as Mother” is, again, a set of conditions is brought. For example, you should not notice any shortcomings, because you do not judge your mother. If your mother is sick, you won’t... Answering that if my mother is sick, I will treat her or call a doctor - this is useless.
- Yes, it means you don’t love your mother if you say that she is sick. We have the best mother.
- Yes. Therefore, in this case we move away from generalizations. The main opposition is that it is not necessary to do this, this and that, and “announce the whole list” in order to earn the right to belong to the Orthodox.
Further. Status pressure. In a hierarchical structure, which is the Church, this is a natural thing, especially since there are certain traditions - the attitude to the priesthood, the relationship between at different levels church hierarchy. But even if communication is built from top to bottom and from bottom to top, it is not only “you” - “you” is marked. This is marked, for example, that I can demand from you, but you cannot demand from me. I can be rude to you, but you can’t be rude to me. There are many status markers that anchor bottom-up and top-down relationships.
You can get out of this only by separating the status from the meaning of statements. A slight reference to transactional analysis. Summary: if the internal state of each person is defined as that there is a child, there is an adult and there is a parent. Top-down communication is the communication between parent and child. Communication as equals is communication at the level of adult-adult, or child-child, or two parents. Two parents discuss the imperfections of their children usually, or in general, how everyone is bad and does not listen to us. Communication between adults is communication at the level of logic, at the level of facts. Communication between two children is communication at the emotional level.
The simplest, but not the most effective, if for some reason we need to communicate regularly with this person, is to reduce contacts to the possible minimum. We know that we are being manipulated - we leave contact, that is, we escape capture. You already understand that every manipulation involves some kind of clue. Contact is established, a weak point is found or felt - for some it is fear, for others it is pity, for others it is pride. They connected to this weak point of yours and applied manipulation to it.
But this moment has not yet arrived, until you have been hooked, or, if this is a manipulation of the presentation of information, until you have been confused, you have control over the situation. If you feel that your clarity of consciousness has floated, they say nonsense, but there seems to be nothing to object, or they put pressure on emotions - it seems that you need to sympathize, we are Christians, we must, we are obliged, we are always to blame, but this is also at the level of feelings did not pass - at this moment you need to escape from being captured.
You can leave contact, go out for five minutes, go to the toilet: “I’ll go out, and you continue, continue.” You can seize the initiative - for example, start asking questions, as we have already talked about. If you are sitting, you can stand up, if you are standing, sit down - change your position in space. You can begin to look searchingly at your interlocutor.
Each person has their own favorite methods of manipulation. They have their own pace, they have their own rhythm, they have their own techniques. They succeed, they fall for it. Each of us, naturally, also has these. But if this rhythm, tempo, and usual techniques go astray? The contact has just begun to be established, since it’s an emotion. For example, they started squeezing tears out of you, and you left. It's like hitting a wall, it's useless. You are back - again you have to squeeze out a tear first. This throws off the manipulation.
Changing the pace is also very powerful tool, because very often the manipulator does not give us the opportunity to concentrate: “Come on, come on! Faster, faster! If not now, then never, this is the last chance! Make up your mind quickly!” Naturally, in this situation, you need to slow down as much as possible and say: “I need to think, I can’t do this right away,” that is, take a step back and postpone the decision. Sometimes, on the contrary, you are exhausted by slowing down: “Well, I don’t know,” long pauses. You can try to speed up your communication.
We filter out the information interference that masks any manipulation, get to the bottom of the matter, the facts, the real problems, the real desires, the motives of your interlocutor, and use unpredictability. The less predictable you are, the harder it is to manipulate you. The paradoxical nature of reactions makes a person practically invulnerable. You need to turn off emotions - not in the sense of blocking them completely, but in the sense of learning to separate them from the information supplied with them. Emotions are separate, facts are separate.
Next, you need to maintain the possibility of dialogue. Human consciousness in its natural state is reflexive, that is, dialogical. We weigh the pros and cons, agreement and disagreement. In the process of manipulation, we are drawn into a monologue, and this monologue is not ours. If you feel that on some issue you have one and only true ultimate truth and there can be no alternative, then this is a good reason to analyze this truth - whether this confidence was the result of manipulation. Can you still look at a situation, a person, an idea from different angles?
Creating an expanded context or moving from the context that is imposed on you to the context that is organic for you helps a lot. And alternatives. If you are told that this is the only way of salvation, you say: “Maybe there is another way?” Or: “I read from the holy fathers that so-and-so was saved in such and such a way.”
When talking about obedience, there is also a substitution of the meaning of words. Obedience now often means doing something that you don’t want to do, but must do.
– For example, they ask me, talk about the importance of mercy and demand that I immediately give all the money to charity, and I expand the context, saying that I have other responsibilities, I have a family and this and that. Therefore, mercy is also important, but... Is this what we are talking about?
- Not really. Rather, the narrowed context here will be this: they talk to you about mercy and say that if you are a truly merciful person, then you will definitely support this dog shelter, because it is impossible to remain indifferent. Then, for example, you say that you already support sick children. Or the opposite situation: “Oh, do you value dogs more than people?”
“My way of showing mercy is the only correct one, but your ways of showing mercy are no good” - this will be a narrowing of the context. You offer alternatives or expand the context. This can apply to anything - to your family life, to raising children. It’s just that there is an appeal to duty: “You must help me, you must help everyone.” You can come out of this state of imposed debt and say: “I can help you, but I don’t owe you anything.”
Finally, regarding the manipulation of hope, we need to separate hope and manipulation. Yes, I have hope, and I want to preserve this hope, but I do not understand how the action prescribed for me is connected with my hopes.
Manipulation or neurosis?
There are situations that look very similar to manipulation. This is manipulative behavior, but the person does not fully control it. This is a situation of deep neurosis. Very often a neurotic has a so-called system of neurotic demands. I think, after reading these requirements, you will remember such people, and sometimes there are entire parishes like this:
- no one should criticize us,
- no one should doubt us,
- we are always right
- everyone must listen to us
- we can manipulate, but this is not possible with us,
- Problems should be solved for us, but we can be capricious,
- we can conflict, but you must humble yourself, you must endure,
- we must be understood, but we will not understand anyone.
- so that everyone, having caressed us from all sides, would leave us alone and not disturb us.
– This is definitely not a program of our government?
– No, these are symptoms of deep neurosis. It happens to everyone. Therefore, if you see all this in its entirety, you must understand that the response to resistance to manipulation, especially harsh, ironic, or an attempt to build a wall, will be conflictual and completely inconsistent with the strength of your influence. This is a reason to be wary, weigh every word and understand where this person vulnerable places, so as not to get close to these vulnerable places if possible.
If this is a characteristic of a certain community, then we can grasp the characteristics of the general church subculture in which we find ourselves. Because there are things in the Church that, to a greater or lesser extent, contribute to manipulation. What is listed here does not necessarily exist everywhere and always, but the more these parameters manifest themselves, the more manipulative the environment itself becomes, that is, a person finds himself in a situation in which it is difficult for him to resist manipulation:
- hierarchy, suppression by authority;
- uncertainty and guilt;
- selectivity in the application of norms and rules (“I want to execute, I want to have mercy”);
- the gap between what is declared and what is real;
- taboo on discussing certain topics (the impossibility, often, even after realizing the manipulation, to answer it by specifying questions and clarifying them).
For example, “they are mocking you, but you must humble yourself, you are a Christian, you must endure.” “Why are you so not peaceful, why are you so conflicted?” And if you object to your opponent, he will say: “Oh, you’re still arguing, that’s pride!” “We do not insult you, we humble you, we care about your spiritual salvation.” If questions about the legality of such actions are taboo, that is, they cannot be discussed, you can say: “Thank you for your humility and for your science. Can I try to work on myself somehow?”
From substitution of feelings to substitution of meanings
The basis of many of the manipulations that we discussed today is the imposition of certain feelings and a certain state. This, of course, is a separate big topic. What I mean is this. Some feelings you should experience, but some feelings are sinful and cannot be experienced. Therefore, a person’s awareness of these feelings is blocked.
For example, a person is sure that he never gets irritated, or that he is never offended, never lies, but at the same time he sympathizes and has compassion for everyone. The awareness of one’s own feelings is distorted, and accordingly, contact with other people brings the situation out. The more manipulative the spiritual leadership is in a particular place, the more difficult it is to get out of this system.
When we talk about sects, about young elders, about those who lead not to Christ, but to themselves, we very often deal with a closed, opaque system in which a substitution initially took place at the level of feelings, then at the level of meanings, and then then - at the level of external manifestations, requirements for members of this subculture, and so on.
What to do when you are dealing with manipulations not of an individual person, but of the environment, that is, you feel a restriction of freedom? For example, you came to a new parish, you try to fit in, you try to improve relationships, you understand that you can’t talk about this - you stand wrong here, you look wrong, you dress wrong, and in general it’s sinful. This is a reason to wonder if this is the spiritual guidance you need?
Finding yourself in a rigid manipulative system, sometimes it is easier not to try to prolong it, but simply to get out of it, since the possibilities of spiritual guidance are not limited to one place.
Having touched on the big topic of manipulation, we didn’t have time to do much. The issue of psychological problems of counseling in general would be worth considering separately, because many questions are connected with this that were asked in advance. I would like to point out one thing. If in spiritual care, instead of feeling how you are becoming stronger, how you are becoming closer to God, how you are receiving more love, you feel more and more lack of freedom - this is a sure sign that at least you need to get out of this vicious circle and consult with some other priest who is authoritative for you.
– What if the situation is really difficult? There are non-standard situations in the Church.
– A hypothetical case that happens so often is a civil marriage. It is clear that O The majority of clergy do not approve of it and do not even give communion to those who have unregistered relationships. Here the person asking must be ready to hear the answer. I don't mean the answer "You must separate because you have already sinned." The question should be: “How can we live in this situation? How do we go to salvation? Analyze honestly what is preventing the relationship from being formalized somehow, why do they remain in this status? And is it true that both spouses want to live together, or is this status convenient for one of them? For example, young man It’s convenient to live in a civil marriage, and the girl wouldn’t mind formalizing the relationship and getting married, but she’s afraid to insist. This is a reason for a more in-depth analysis of the situation.
In general, in such situations, you should go to a person you trust, or if you don’t have such a familiar priest, ask friends, acquaintances you trust, sometimes without even specifying your topic: “Is there a priest with whom you can talk?” frankly?" There is sure to be at least one like this in your surroundings.
Video: Vitaly Korneev
Natalya Skuratovskaya does an unusual job: provides psychological counseling Orthodox people, including priests. In addition, she is the author of unique psychological trainings for future pastors. Now these trainings are successfully conducted at the Khabarovsk Seminary. She recently gave a public lecture, “Psychological Manipulation in the Church,” which caused great resonance in the Orthodox community. We talked with Natalya about psychological problems, which arise in the parish between priests and parishioners. Who is a “metaphysical father”, what does it mean to “laminate sins” and how can a priest protect himself from burnout and from being banned at the same time - read in the interview.
Where do neuroses hide?
— The topic “Psychological manipulation in the Church” arose for you when people who had encountered similar things within the walls of the church began to contact you. Have you experienced manipulative techniques yourself?
— I had such experience, but I was initially an unsuitable object for manipulation. This is how my childhood developed: I had non-authoritarian parents, and from the age of two or three they were ready not to demand, but to justify their demand, so we immediately developed a fairly adult relationship. This attitude was then preserved in communication with any authoritative people. It’s easy for me to disagree, to ask a clarifying question, I’m not afraid to be a black sheep, a “marginalist,” and I’m not worried that I’ll be perceived differently. I brought from childhood a feeling of my own acceptance, so my self-esteem does not decrease when they tell me that I am “wrong, not Orthodox enough.” I try to separate constructive criticism, which helps me work on myself, from manipulative techniques or devaluation.
I have been in the Church since I was 18 years old, I am Orthodox in the first generation, it was my own impulse. During the neophyte period, I encountered different things. The end of the 80s, church life was just being revived, there were a lot of uncertainties and distortions. I reacted to the manipulations even then: either I walked away, or, in the spirit of youthful maximalism, I resisted. I constantly stood up for my friends who were victims of manipulation and, it seemed to me, could not stand up for themselves.
Now I understand that I did not always tactfully intervene, for example, in their relationship with the abbot. The rector does not pay extra to the choir, he says that you came to serve for the glory of God, how are you not ashamed to be so mercantile, they say, you do not serve God, but mammon, - and people, in fact, live on this. And I rushed to shame the rector and extort money from him for this choir — real case. Then I realized how to resolve such situations more softly, tactfully and without conflicts. And in my youth it turned out that the people I was trying to protect fell into the category of inconvenient along with me. This taught me a lot too.
— How do they perceive a priest? modern people, parishioners? Who do they see first of all - a demand-performer, a psychotherapist, a celestial being?
— All of the above options are present in real life, but, fortunately, priests, in addition to all of the above, are also shepherds and counselors.
Indeed, some see in the priest a priest-executor of demands. These are people who seek in religion a means to achieve their own pragmatic goals. I’ll light a candle to help you get better so that your son can go to college. That is, I will give something to God so that God, in turn, will take care of my immediate needs and worldly affairs.
“But even here the attitude may be different. As a specialist in the service sector, if a priest refuses to bless something or baptize upon request, a stream of negativity immediately hits him. Or there is a relationship from bottom to top, as to some higher being. Recently I came across the phrase “strong priest” somewhere on Facebook.
— Yes, when the priest is perceived as the bearer of some superpowers — This is another distortion, and it is not useful either to the priests themselves or to those who treat them this way. It is not useful, first of all, because a system of inflated expectations associated with the presence of holy orders is formed. As if a priest should know the answers to all questions, should be almost a miracle worker, selflessly serve 24 hours a day, at any moment you can turn to him and demand attention. He is a holy man, he must always respond.
This is a temptation that is very difficult for pastors, especially young ones, to overcome. I want to fit in. The result is either charm and youthfulness, or breakdown, emotional and spiritual emptiness. — precisely because of the feeling of futility of attempts to justify these high expectations, because of the feeling of one’s own duality, the discrepancy between the external image and internal sense of self.
For parishioners looking for a celestial being in a priest, someone who will decide everything for them, this is also very unhelpful. They develop a state of spiritual infantility and irresponsibility - the priest is seen as a metaphysical father, onto whom they can blame all their problems and remain a child in spiritual terms until the end of their days.
It often happens that such destructive relationships develop, but both parties are happy with it. Infantile parishioners find a priest whose pride is flattered by such an attitude, and he begins to believe that he is “not like other people,” special, that any thought that comes to his mind was put in by the Lord.
If such a priest is asked about things about which he has no idea, he says any ad-lib, but believes that it is the will of God that is manifested through him.
By and large, this is a delight. In such relationships, both parties receive their own, including psychological, benefits. But this has a rather negative attitude towards spiritual life. Such parishioners are in the illusion of the salvation of the chosen path; sometimes neuroses and fear of the unpredictability of existence are hidden in these relationships. Often it is precisely such parishes that surround themselves with a wall of hostility towards everything external, worldly, a search for signs of the end of the world, and eschatological neurosis — everything is bad, only we have salvation, there are enemies all around, only salvation is with our priest or in our monastery.
How Christians can be the “salt of the world”, with such an attitude towards this very world, is completely incomprehensible.
“With us it’s impossible to do otherwise”
— According to my feelings, many Orthodox Christians like manipulative priests. Why do people want to be manipulated?
— Here it is worth starting with why many people come to the Church in general and what they are looking for in it. When they are looking for protection from their fears, confirmation that there is a single correct path, they find it with priests of a certain type. Often people bring their own experience codependent relationships in which they are the weak side, and there is someone strong, authoritarian, psychologically aggressive, who forces them...
- ...parents, husband or boss?
- Yes, this all happens because people who are accustomed to such relationships easily fit into the same relationships, in a certain sense they are comfortable in them, because they do not need to change anything about themselves.
“Such people usually don’t like it very much when a priest says: “Think for yourself.”
- Yes, for them this is evidence that this is some kind of wrong, “weak” priest, he does not want to “adopt” everyone - in the sense of recognizing them as eternal babies who need to be manipulated, who do not understand differently.
The second point: people with a tendency towards codependent relationships habitually justify these relationships - “With us it’s impossible otherwise.” Their image of themselves is already distorted. In such priests, who look down on them, they see reinforcement of this distorted image, their picture of the world is confirmed, and this reassures: “I knew that I was good for nothing and could not live with my mind, well, the priest tells me this , and we must obey him in everything.”
This is a mentality that is a consequence of historical reasons. Mother Maria Skobtsova wrote about this back in the 1930s: that when the Church in Russia ceases to be persecuted and the authorities support it, the same people who from the Pravda newspaper will learn the party line - who they should hate, who condemn and whom to approve. That is, people with unreflective, uncritical thinking, who believe that there is only one answer to every question, and are unable to look at the problem in all its diversity.
People with such uncritical thinking, having come to the Church, will first study - look for a mentor who, in the same categories, will give them this “only correct answer”, and then, when they understand that they have already mastered the basic concept, in the same spirit of “infallibility "will teach in the name of the Church, anathematizing everyone who disagrees with them. That this will become the dominant type of churchliness — this was quite logically predicted based on the socio-psychological facts of the early twentieth century.
— Believers really identify the opinion of any priest with the opinion of the Church...
— The main substitution here is that the authority of the Church in the highest sense of the word extends to its individual representatives, and disagreement with individual representatives of the Church is presented as a rejection of the Church as such. At the same time, we forget that in the history of Orthodoxy there were different positions and disputes within the Church. Just remember the Ecumenical Councils — in what discussions truths were born, and the fact that in the Orthodox Church there is no dogma about anyone’s infallibility. We condemn Catholics for the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, while in our country many priests (not to mention bishops) claim the same infallibility of their judgments, becoming “mini-popes” in the parishes, deaneries or dioceses entrusted to them, and any disagreement with their private opinion is perceived as an attack on the Church.
The loudest intolerant minority
“On the other hand, a priest who says something different from the majority opinion is perceived as “wrong.”
“They see infallibility not in anyone, but only in those who confirm their own picture of the world and the Church.
As for the majority, everything is ambiguous here too. Especially in last years, when various trends clearly emerged within the Russian Orthodox Church. Once, in the company of priests and theology teachers, we counted 8 different “religions” within the Russian Orthodox Church, almost not intersecting with each other — from extreme fundamentalists to supporters of the Parisian school of theology. From within each faction it is seen that “our Orthodoxy is the most correct, and those who disagree with us are not fully Orthodox.”
One's own opinion seems to be the opinion of the majority. Although we usually don't know the majority opinion — The loudest voice is that of the intolerant minority. The same extreme fundamentalists — This is not the majority, but they loudly state their position. But the hierarchy does not challenge them for various reasons, so someone begins to perceive this as the position of the entire Church. For example, one of the fundamentalists opposes certain cultural phenomena, and outsiders begin to think that the Church is interfering everywhere: in theaters, schools, etc. with your own opinions and prohibitions.
“But non-church people usually see this opinion in the church press: such priests are published, called to TV channels, and therefore they are perceived as a church mouthpiece. And parishioners, as people who join the majority opinion, begin to believe that if you criticize all this, then you are some kind of unchurch... How unhealthy is this situation, or maybe it is natural? And what could this lead to?
— The situation is understandable, although, of course, abnormal. We observed something similar in Soviet times in relation to various phenomena: everything leads to the emasculation of meanings.
People in the Church do not gather to sort things out on social issues, but it is through these discussions that the very concept of Christian, church life is replaced. The focus of attention shifts from salvation and deification to attempts to impose certain external moral standards on the world around us. Although if we return to the Gospel, Sacred Tradition, this has never been the task of the Church.
- Current seminarians, future pastors - what images are they now guided by? Do they understand what parishioners want from them, what do they themselves want?
— According to my observations, they understand, but not always. They come, guided by a variety of considerations: from the desire to serve God and people to the perception of the seminary as a social elevator: I live in the village, there is no money, there are no prospects, but here I am for five years on everything free, and in general, the main thing in the Church is — settle down, and then somehow you can live and earn money...
The seminary largely sets the atmosphere in which future shepherds are formed. The seminaries are very different: both in terms of attitudes and methods of education. There are, in my opinion, quite destructive spiritual schools in which relationships of severe codependency are fostered, where the main goal — integration into a system of hierarchical relations.
Priests do not understand the basics of crisis psychology
— I communicate with a large number of priests, and from communication it is easy to determine whether a person studied at a seminary or first graduated from a secular educational institution, and perhaps from a seminary in absentia. The style of public speech of young priests who only graduated from seminary is full of Church Slavonicisms and clichéd phrases; they absolutely do not know how to “switch registers” and speak like real people. And a person after a secular university easily switches these registers.
— A certain manner of speech and behavior is acquired — This reveals one of the problems of modern spiritual education, and intra-church communication in general. Most priests do not master the art of dialogue at all; they are monologues: he speaks - they listen to him. Any question (not to mention disagreement) causes an almost panicky reaction, which is often expressed in attempts to “shut up” those who disagree.
— This can often be seen among seminary teachers...
- Yes, this is where the inability to conduct dialogue and manipulative techniques begin. — using formal status as an opportunity to silence one's opponent. This is then transferred to priestly service.
When I worked with the guys at the Khabarovsk Seminary, we were developing communication skills, the ability to organize discussions, listen to the interlocutor, and speak the language of our audience. And then the seminary carried out a project (which, I hope, will continue) “Pastoral Practice”: seminarians performed real church tasks, interacting not only with parishioners, but also with various non-church audiences: schoolchildren, students, residents of boarding schools for sick children, soldiers urgent service. They organized a “landing” of senior seminarians into rural parishes to help the local priests: catechesis, conversations with parishioners, organizing events for schoolchildren in the village. The seminarians and I practiced communication skills in the language of the audience in order to understand the motives and interests of people, and adequately respond to objections.
We had the following classes: I divided the group into “priests” and “anti-clericals.” The latter compiled lists of all the typical complaints against the Church, starting from the notorious “priests in Mercedes”, and those who were in the role of “priests” had to reasonably respond to these complaints — not with formal excuses, but in a way that is consistent with their beliefs, without guile. Then the groups changed so that everyone had the opportunity to learn how to adequately respond to “controversial issues.” Fortunately, in the training format they had the opportunity to work with their own beliefs, too. When an answer is given that is formally approved, but the priest himself does not believe in it, this answer does not convince anyone and is perceived as hypocrisy. And when you manage to pull out your own doubts, voice them, comprehend them, the answers are given at a different level, and there is no fear of facing questions.
Claiming the Church is an easy task. A more complex level of working with senior students is claims to God: why does He allow the suffering of the innocent, what to say to parents of disabled children or parents who have lost children.
This comes up constantly in the life of a particular priest: it is sorrow that brings many to the Church. At the same time, priests do not understand the basics of crisis psychology: what grief is, how it is experienced, what the stages are, how to work with it in terms of counseling - what a person can be told, what cannot be done under any circumstances, what will destroy him.
(I’m currently writing an article on this topic: “The Priest and Grief.”) I believe that every priest should know this, but so far practically no seminary teaches this.
Unfortunately, in the Church we have deep-rooted opinions about “how God punishes for what sins,” although I categorically disagree with this, and the holy fathers warn against this. People replace God's judgment with their own judgment.
“Thereby traumatizing people who are already traumatized...
- Yes, and sometimes leading to such despair that it pushes you away from God forever. I came across such cases precisely as a psychologist. People tried to find consolation in the Church after the death of their children or during a difficult pregnancy or threat of miscarriage. Or an Orthodox woman, but not very ecclesiastical, comes to confession, and they say to her: “Oh, your marriage is unmarried.” — your baby will die or be born sick! Your child is cursed by God for your sins, for your life!” And this position, which was dominant in the 90s, still exists.
How spiritual are puffed cheeks?
—What is a “good” priest for parishioners? How important is his appearance and demeanor? How does this affect the attitude towards him? According to my feelings, the simpler a priest behaves, the less reverence for him, the weaker the perception of him as a priest. And the more puffy his cheeks are, the longer his beard, the more shocking, manipulative his behavior, the more respect he has, the more spiritual people see him.
And the idea of what spirituality is varies from person to person. Usually spirituality — this is a confirmation of their own ideas about what is good and what is bad. That is, the more the priest confirms this, the more spiritual he is. At the same time, ideas can be aggressive, far from Christian.
Regarding puffy cheeks, demeanor, emphasizing one’s status — Yes, there is a significant category of parishioners for whom this is evidence that Father — a special person with special gifts. And if he behaves simply, it seems to them that he is degrading the dignity of the sacred dignity, that he does not know how to earn authority.
At the same time, for thinking people (not those who are looking for ready-made answers to all questions), the opposite is true: they will not communicate with the “pompous and important”, but will look for someone who can speak normal human language. This is how the stratification of “church subcultures” occurs.
People disperse to different parishes, and if there are different priests in the same parish, internal conflict may arise, including between priests: some kind of competition appears. It is no secret that sometimes priests are jealous of how many parishioners come to confession, how many spiritual children they have. This can serve as a reason for hidden wars, often manipulative, and sometimes, unfortunately, intrigue.
But in the long term, the bet on good looks appearance, “puffy cheeks” does not justify itself. In addition to the external, there is also the internal, and if a priest leads his flock to internal devastation or embitterment, he will be unable to bring anything but harm through his ministry.
Few people have seriously dealt with this issue from the standpoint of patristic asceticism. But there is, for example, Father Gabriel (Bunge), known to many, who was engaged in patristics while still a Catholic monk, and then converted to Orthodoxy and joined the Russian Orthodox Church. At one time, exploring the issue of spiritual devastation of clergy (I was interested in this in connection with the syndrome of pastoral burnout), he wrote that an attempt to compensate for internal devastation with external activity is completely destructive for both the pastor and the flock. As a result, the priest closes himself off from his spiritual problems, and he also leads his parishioners from the spiritual to the external.
External activity can be expressed in very good forms - social service, for example, but it can also be the notorious “Orthodox activism” with the pogrom of ungodly exhibitions, etc. Anything is good to take your mind off your spiritual life. And at the same time feel like people engaged in church work. But behind it all lies a devastating self-justification.
Laminate your sins
— The main meeting place between priest and parishioner is confession. Are there differences in the understanding of the sacrament of confession by priests on the one hand and parishioners on the other? Could there be manipulation here?
- Certainly. There are problems, and there can be manipulations. Moreover, the problems are partly systemic. The very concept of repentance in the mass church perception is sometimes replaced by books like “A Thousand and One Sins.” And preparation for confession is often formal, and sometimes manipulative, with the requirement to recognize as sin what you internally do not consider to be sin. The concept of repentance is replaced by a certain formal ritual action, which does not induce a person to internal changes.
Second change: for some parishioners, confession — it is a substitute for psychotherapy. Under the guise of confession, they try to tell the priest about the hardships of their life; instead of confession, they end up with self-justification: how bad everyone is, how much I suffer from them. “I’m guilty of anger, but they’ll bring anyone down!” Or they ask for advice on what to do about it, but the priest doesn’t have the courage to say that he doesn’t know, and he gives a standard pious answer, which internal state The questioner has nothing to do with it.
In my opinion, a good, “strong” priest is one who is not afraid to admit that he does not know everything. Who can say to his flock: I don’t know what to answer you - let’s pray together. Who does not try to replace God for his flock.
“Father, what should I do?” - this, on the one hand, is manipulation of the priest, shifting responsibility onto him. And most priests do not have the level of holiness and insight to reliably say whether or not to marry this person, to look for or not to look for another job (unless we are talking about something clearly criminal). But once such a question is asked, the priest often considers himself obligated to answer it. And these answers ruin destinies. It turns out, on the one hand, the priest manipulated trust, his hidden fear of losing authority, as well as pride that I was so special, God gave me the right to judge everything.
Confession is not in order to list sins, but in order to change, to leave your passions. This is an admission of your mistakes and a willingness not to return to them. But in real life it happens that people come with the same list year after year, confession becomes a formal admission to Communion, and Communion becomes a formal procedure confirming your belonging to the Church. As one priest I knew bitterly joked: well, they come with the same list - let them laminate it, and if they get rid of something, I myself will give them a marker to cross it out...
This is one of those things that has not quite been revived in our church revival.
— And where was she supposed to be reborn from, from what times?
— This is also a difficult question: many aspects of church life have actually been revived according to the models of the end of the Synodal period — not the best, let’s face it, time of our Church’s existence. I think, first of all, we need to revive meanings and look for forms in an honest, open dialogue.
— How does a feeling of repentance differ from a feeling of guilt? It seems to me that people often confuse these two feelings: if a person does not feel the notorious “I am worse than everyone, I am worse than everyone,” it seems to him that he does not have any repentance.
— You can distinguish by the vector of effort: a normal repentant feeling should encourage a person to change - not to self-destruction, not to self-flagellation, but to get rid of passions in oneself, to correct the mistakes made. It cannot be said that our feelings of guilt are always harmful, always unfounded, but we should not confuse the imposed feeling of guilt and the voice of conscience. We made a mistake, but can we correct it or not? We have caused harm to a person: can we fix it or not?
- What if we can’t fix it?
- This happens if we killed a person or he himself died. But usually we think that everything, the relationship is broken and nothing can be changed, but in fact we can ask for forgiveness, and correct something, do something for the person we offended. Our own fears and pride interfere with this correction.
There are objective situations that we cannot correct. This raises the next question: how can we atone for this? — before God and people? Let us remember that in Orthodoxy there is no legal concept of salvation; we are saved by the grace of God. A person has caused irreparable harm, but he can try to do some good. For example: a woman had an abortion, then joined the church, repented, but nothing can be corrected, death is death. But everything can be redeemed with love: for your children, for strangers, for helping other women in such a difficult situation. — both psychological and material. If conscience tells you that you need to atone, then you can always find opportunities.
— Are the penitential prayers served for women who have had abortions a dead end? It is believed that this should provide them with some kind of support...
— These prayer services themselves can increase the destructive feeling of guilt if everything is limited to prayer services only, without good deeds. This is led to by the awareness of the incorrigibility of what has been done simultaneously with the (illusory) awareness that God will not forgive. And one cannot hope for redemption through prayers: God forgives not because a person has performed certain actions a certain number of times, but because the person has changed.
Spiritual life — this is an internal rebirth, and if a woman who has committed an abortion continues to live with a feeling of unforgiveness, the irreparability of what she has done, she will continue to bring evil into the world, will not be able to give love to either her children or her husband, will not be able to help other people, and all her strength will be aimed at self-destruction. Kill yourself even psychologically — it won't undo the evil. Our Church does not approve of suicide in any form.
The difference between repentance and guilt is whether the feeling is creative or destructive.
Pastoral split personality
— Friendship between a priest and parishioners: how common is this type of relationship, are there any pitfalls here?
— According to my observations, this is not the most common type of relationship, precisely because it is often believed that a priest should be “special”, too human relations may undermine his authority. Sometimes the priest himself considers it necessary to play in front of the parishioners a certain role, learned by him either from the models of theological school, or from those priests who contributed to his formation. Therefore, sometimes he considers friendly relations not very acceptable for himself.
There are real dangers here too: excessive familiarity between a priest and parishioners can make him an object of manipulation on their part. Is it useful or not useful? — depends on the maturity of the priest. If this is an adult relationship, this is rather useful. If this is a friendship - drinking beer together, sometimes even slandering, then this can later complicate pastoral relationships.
— Professional split personality - how often does this happen among priests? How to avoid the fact that a person is alone in church, but different with friends and family?
— This happens often, because the system of church relations itself dictates a certain role. The priest does not find the strength to escape the demands of the external environment. The danger is obvious — this is an internal conflict. The question arises: where is the real one? If he is not real in the church, this ultimately undermines his faith, leading to crises not only psychological, but also spiritual: to “de-churching”, leaving the priesthood.
A person understands the objective problems of church life, and trying to convince himself that these problems do not exist often leads to such a split - as a clergyman, he is also related to these problems, but cannot change anything, so it is easier not to notice them or justify them. “Stockholm syndrome” arises - an emotional justification for “one’s” aggressors. Such duality is fraught with deep neurosis.
How to avoid this? We need less fear and more sincerity in our inner world. Here are the methods to achieve this — There is no universal recipe here, it depends on what a particular person has now.
— What solutions do priests find out of this situation, other than defrocking?
— There are several ways out, and not all of them are constructive. One of the most common — church, professional cynicism. Yes, my job is like this, a censer-sprinkler, a priest-executor of demands, I will be like that, since the parishioners and the clergy want it that way. On the one hand, this is a devaluation of one’s service, one’s mission, on the other — protection from completely destructive actions: so as not to drink too much, for example.
As I already said, another “way out” is codependency, identifying oneself with the aggressor. Or going into denial, into a defensive position: they say, the Church is holy, and everything in it is holy, I am wrong in everything, and the Church is right in everything. This is a neurotic position, not useful either for the priest or for the flock, but quite common.
The third position: to outgrow all this, to “separate the wheat from the chaff” within oneself, to emerge from the myths, partly invented by oneself, partly imposed by the church environment, to a more objective awareness of church reality. Realize: what can I do specifically that corresponds to my beliefs, my faith. And through this, overcome duality.
Although in real life it happens that when a priest tries to follow this path - to be unhypocritical with people and God, to be sincere - he encounters problems within the church. The system begins to squeeze him out: his superiors, the people who serve with him — and this is very difficult to resist.
Mentally active people burn out
— The notorious burnout: some argue that this is not a problem, not a reason for sympathy. It is a sin. Like, it happens to everyone, and whoever doesn’t cope is to blame, a loser, a traitor in a cassock, etc. And there is no point in raising this topic at all.
- Usually this is stated by the same people who believe that the priest — this is a superman, a fireproof terminator, who 24 hours a day, seven days a week must be a holy miracle worker, an ascetic, giving everyone whatever they ask for. This is manipulation with the aim of denying the priest the right to human feelings, the right to make mistakes, to be weak. Obviously, this is fundamentally wrong: the priest remains a person who sometimes has a hard time, who gets tired, who has doubts.
Emotional burnout — This is an occupational hazard associated with constant communication with a large number of people. He is especially strong in “helping” professions, which include priests, doctors, psychologists — all those to whom they go with problems, from whom they expect emotional support. Naturally, a person who is conscientious about his service begins to invest himself emotionally in it. It’s bad if there’s no way to recover — both objectively and due to a lack of understanding of what an emotional resource is and how it should be restored. There is a request: I must serve, come on, you have grace. And if you feel tired and empty, it means you are not praying well, you are a bad priest.
These are manipulations, on the one hand, of love, on the other. — with pride, with the third — fear of depreciation. This is a very difficult situation for a clergyman. Many themselves believe in this, and while they still have the strength to pull themselves out, serve, communicate with people, instead of taking a break in time, recovering and returning with new strength to their service, they torture this service out of themselves and reach the extreme. devastation.
In the last stage of burnout, there is a physiological need for alienation from all people. So the priest feels that he has almost been “devoured”, and he goes into an extreme defensive position in order to leave at least something of his personality. We run out of energy, it’s difficult to get up in the morning, let alone anything else.
It's not a sin, it's an occupational hazard. Therefore, you need, firstly, to know that such a problem exists, and secondly, to stop and recover in time. But it is necessary for this to be understood not only by the priests themselves, but also by the clergy. And parishioners must understand that the priest is given a special power to perform the sacraments, and not superhuman capabilities. Parishioners should not use the priest as a permanent “donor.”
In trainings for priests, we dealt with this problem, because it is a common request: where can I get the strength to do everything? People often seek advice from the position of “I can’t do it anymore”: “I’m overloaded, I can’t do anything, I don’t want to, my personal life has collapsed, I don’t see my children, my mother is depressed, everything is bad.” And everything is bad because the balance between service and personal life, between bestowal and restoration is disrupted. There are high expectations that a person tries to justify. And here we need to stop and begin to restore this balance.
In the Orthodox Church, this problem has been voiced literally in recent years. At the beginning of 2011, I spoke at the Christmas readings with a report on pastoral psychology, based on the results of the first school of pastors (at that time we held it in Kamchatka), on psychological needs. She touched on the topic of burnout and was literally anathematized by the indignant Orthodox public. Active women from the audience shouted at me: “How dare you! Blasphemy! You are slandering, the grace of the priesthood guarantees against burnout! It can not be so!" At the same time, the priests sitting in the hall nodded, came up to me, thanked me that “at least someone saw us as people,” took the coordinates, saying that, well, I have problems that I have no one to discuss with: “It seems you will understand — Can I come with you?"
This is how I began psychological counseling of priests. After this, literally less than a year passed before our Patriarch spoke about pastoral burnout and the topic ceased to be taboo. But still, many still believe that pastoral burnout — it's about lazy priests. Although I would say that this is not about those who are spiritually lazy, but about those who are mentally active. Who relied heavily on spiritual strength, and served people too long, with his head.
And the Catholic Church and Protestants have been working with this problem for decades. For example, there is such a practice as “houses for gaining new strength” - in Germany, in my opinion, there is definitely something like this, and in Italy. It was started by Catholics, then they united with Protestants. This is a kind of sanatorium for clergy who have suffered from pastoral burnout, a three-month course of therapy. This therapy includes time for individual prayer and (when they have more or less recovered) participation in worship services. — the priest needs to celebrate the liturgy, the Eucharist is healing.
There is such a practice, but when I told our Orthodox priests about it, the reaction was bitter laughter: “I can see how my bishop will let me go to be treated for pastoral burnout, will treat me with care, will relieve me of diocesan obediences...”
Our problem is complex. A priest can partly protect himself, and we dealt with this at the trainings: how to organize his life so that the causes of burnout are minimized as much as possible. Find opportunities to recover both during the week and throughout the year — include the same cyclical restoration into the cycle of liturgical life.
And one of the aspects — how to build a relationship with the bishop, how to protect yourself in case of refusal of some diocesan obedience, so as not to fall under sanctions. It was at the “help yourself” level. As you understand, bishops very rarely seek psychological advice.
What pushes you away from the Church
- I think neither one nor the other. The fact that the presence of priests on social networks is monitored, “every word you say can be used against you” - this is very relevant in the church environment. For many, this is the only way to frankly discuss some of their opinions and doubts. It happens that this is spontaneous psychotherapy — mental stress is so great that you can throw it out either in something destructive, or under a pseudonym to speak out about painful issues.
Unfortunately, many priests do not even allow themselves to think about psychotherapy; it seems to them that if they turn to a psychotherapist, they will lose their authority as a priest. But it's a trap — maintain your authority at the cost of your own health and life.
But when a circle of the same people with the same problems and disappointments gathers (and since we have the same system, the disappointments are similar), often instead of awareness and comprehension, this leads to the mutual induction of cynicism and devaluation. From a psychological point of view it helps, but from a spiritual point of view - if this is not a transitional stage, but a final one - it can be harmful.
— I heard that in Poland Catholics have rehabilitation centers for alcoholic priests. How do we treat a priest, for example, with an alcohol addiction?
- The attitude is different. At our trainings for priests there is such an exercise: we find out what brings people to the Church and what repels them. In most groups I've worked with, the number one reason most often cited is — these are the sins of the shepherd. Priests themselves realize how much their sins and addictions can have a destructive effect on their parishioners. But what they realize among themselves, in a narrow circle, does not mean that in the presence of parishioners they do not deny these sins (a frequent position — this is denial of the problem). People with addictions are basically in denial. — a very common position, and all those who try to point out the problem fall into the category of enemies, spiteful critics, and are excluded from the social circle.
The attitude on the part of parishioners is most often judgmental. There is a category for which this is an excuse for their own sins: our priest is not a saint, but to me — God himself commanded so. But the attitude that would help the priest cope with addiction is almost never found. Understanding is needed: not to be an aggressor for him, but also not to become a “savior” who helps him stay in this position.
- In my opinion, our only way to “help” the priest is to send him to a ban for some time...
— I encountered exceptions several times. Real situation: a priest serves alone in a rural parish, a difficult family situation, he began to drink out of grief and melancholy. At some point, he slips into alcoholism to such an extent that parishioners begin to complain to the bishop. The bishop does not ban him, but transfers him to the city church under the guidance of a rector who has rehabilitation skills.
In one diocese there was even a joke that this was our “rehabilitation church.” The abbot there was respected spiritually, and helped to cope not only with addictions, but also pulled people out of despair. — such a psychologist from God. And the bishop adequately assessed that there is such a treasure in the diocese, and it can be used to help priests in difficult situations. And for a year or two such a priest was appointed to this temple, and when the abbot said that such and such a father was fine, he could be released, the priest received a new appointment.
But, firstly, such people are needed in the diocese, and secondly, this is possible in small dioceses, where at least some personal relationships between the bishop and priests take place.
— How would parishioners answer this question: what pushes them away from the Church? In my feeling, these are not sins of the priest, but rather hypocrisy.
— I would give two reasons for parishioners: first — hypocrisy, and the second - “they went for love, but got violence.” They followed the Gospel, the external promises that “God is love,” Christianity — this is the path of salvation, the path of approaching God. But when people came to Church, they did not see this love. On the contrary, they were quickly explained that they themselves were so bad that they did not see her, they needed to work on themselves, come to terms, and improve. And when people realized that they had become even more unhappy than they were, that there was now even less love than there was before coming to the Church, this became one of the reasons for leaving, even to the point of falling away from Christianity, from faith in God.
“And people see the priest’s personal sins, while at the same time listening to his flowery sermons, in which the priest exposes these same sins in others...
- Yes, this is the same hypocrisy that a mentally normal person cannot come to terms with; he experiences cognitive dissonance. If a priest has visible sins, but he struggles with them, repents (spiritual warfare occurs not only among parishioners, but also among the priest)... Here you can recall the story told by Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, how in his youth he had to confess to a drunkard priest, and this confession turned his life upside down. The priest cried so sincerely with him, so empathized, realizing his unworthiness...
Despondency or depression, priest or psychotherapist?
— How can a person (no matter: a priest or a parishioner) understand that he has a spiritual life? A person can sometimes confuse spiritual life with some kind of self-psychotherapy, which helps to cope with neuroses and depression. For example, you for a long time If you haven’t received communion, some internal discomfort appears - you go, take communion, and the balance is restored, you move on with your life. And then again. And a person may think: maybe this has nothing to do with spiritual life at all, just a sequence of rituals that helps a neurotic person keep himself in relative harmony.
- I believe that you can understand by the fruits. As the Apostle Paul wrote, the fruits of the spirit — this is peace, joy, long-suffering, mercy, meekness, abstinence... And if a person goes to church for many years, but the fruits of the spirit do not increase, but on the contrary, decrease, then this is a reason to think that instead of spiritual life there is some kind of illusion.
If a person in the Church learns condemnation instead of love, if instead of joy he feels depression, instead of peace — bitterness, then what is the quality of his spiritual life?
— How does the psychological approach differ from the spiritual approach? How do you understand in which cases you need to fast, pray and humble yourself more, and in which cases you need to go to a psychotherapist?
“You need to notice this not only in yourself. A wise and tactful priest should notice this in parishioners and advise them to consult a specialist.
One of the signs: walking in circles — the same sins, passions, situations. And it seems that a person is struggling with them, fasting and praying, taking on feats, penances being imposed on him, but nothing helps. This may be an indication that the problem lies not only on a spiritual plane, but rather on a psychological one, and without overcoming this problem it is impossible to even begin spiritual life.
Second sign — constant self-justification. Everyone is to blame, I'm not to blame. A person's inability to accept responsibility for their actions — this is one of the signs of neurosis.
The same sign can be anger, aggression, the feeling that there are enemies all around, fear. The whole spectrum negative emotions, which often accompanies psychological trauma and a neurotic perception of reality.
The Church often offers a different answer: these are your sins, you must fight them. But if this is a neurosis, then it is better to cope with the neurosis, and then with those consequences of ingrained passions that darken spiritual life.
Finally, it is worth paying attention to the symptoms of psychopathology and mental illness. The same endogenous depressions, which should not be confused with despondency, — it is, in a sense, a metabolic disorder just like diabetes. Only the balance is disrupted not of those hormones that affect the body, but of neurotransmitters that affect consciousness, the nervous system. And if a person’s level of serotonin and dopamine has dropped, then, of course, the Lord can heal miraculously, but the position of the Church, nevertheless, — Do not tempt the Lord and do not refuse medical help.
If the depressive state does not go away, it gets worse, if trying to fight despondency becomes more and more despondent, if you absolutely want to limit your social circle, do nothing as much as possible, if you don’t have the strength to get up in the morning, comb your hair, brush your teeth, you should consult a doctor to select appropriate medications. Or, if this is not depression, but there is another physiological disorder behind it, determine the cause of these problems. This condition, for example, can occur with certain diseases of the thyroid gland.
Our mental and somatic states are connected, and what we perceive as sin or passion sometimes has a medical reason.
Interviewed by Ksenia Smirnova
Reviews
- Search - 07.11.2018 23:52
biomehanik writes here with knowledge of the matter, there is no need to accuse him of lack of spirituality. Perhaps he is a priest himself, and probably selfless and deeply fundamental in a good way. But I think that both points of view are legitimate. Yes, they have different reference points and coordinate systems. Not everyone can endure the hardships of the world at the same level as a biomechanist. I think that the psychologist here also acts out of love for his neighbor and can sometimes provide first aid. God Bogovo, businessmen - training, and crazy people - ambulance. And the Lord will judge. - White Horvat - 07/16/2017 21:29
Olga, a biomechanist writes about her internal problems. He read Skuratovskaya's text superficially. Re-read the text again, and you will understand that the text is beautiful, but the abuse is completely empty and unspiritual. - White Horvat - 07/16/2017 00:56
Noble rage beats in the words of the biomechanist. Is it good? "The Holy of Holies of the Church" - priests? Where is this from? I have always believed that the Holy of Holies is the Body and Blood of Christ. In general, the text is inconsistent, internally contradictory and a little “quixotic” - a biomechanic is fighting against mills. - Olga - 07/09/2017 23:04
At first I really liked N. Skuratovskaya’s article and I almost believed her that it was all about the priests, and after reading Biomechanics’ review I was convinced that it was all about me. Thank you for admonishing us and “deliver us from evil and do not lead us into temptation”! - biomehanik - 02/06/2017 20:12
New apostles: we are ours, we are new world let's buildA short answer to Natalya Skuratovskaya’s article “What we consider a sin sometimes has a medical reason.”
A priest who needed the help of a lay psychologist is no longer a priest. The priest has only one Comforter - God. All the rest are from the evil one.
If a priest cannot help himself, then he cannot help his parishioners in any way, and his worth as a shepherd is worthless. If a priest came for a consultation with a psychologist, it means that he, of his own free will, renounced the Holy Spirit, transmitted to him by the Apostolic Succession of the hierarchy. To talk about the priesthood in isolation from the Holy Spirit and the succession of the hierarchy means either not to fully understand the essence of the issue, or slyly leading it towards worldly simplification - to a place where all the templates of a society mired in sin can easily be applied to the priesthood. Which in itself is very attractive to the world - to tarnish the priesthood with the label "one of us." Psychology and everything connected with it is one of these ways to reduce the role of the Church to another “sphere of service”, replacing God with its postulates.
Psychology as a science is absolutely insignificant human teaching, which is the fruit of purely mental speculation and artificial methods of recent times. For thousands of years, humanity existed without psychologists, turning to God for healing of soul and body. And then suddenly, almost the day before yesterday, it turned out that life without psychologists and psychoanalysts is impossible in principle and the priests themselves urgently need specialists of this kind of very intimate services. What else can they be called?
And if only there was a confessor... And also a “trainer”. Who are we even talking about – horses? They are trained, I agree. And people, generally speaking, are trained. But doesn’t the “training” offered by the author for clergy look too much like various kinds of express business courses with the so-called. “cases” - homemade template examples for memorization and subsequent “application in practice”?
The mention of holiness also deserves attention. To talk about the “level of holiness and insight” of a priest, which, according to the author, parishioners look for in a priest, means completely not understanding the meaning of holiness. THERE ARE NO SAINTS AMONG LIVING PEOPLE. Those who live can only be righteous, but not saints. Only the living God is One Holy in the Most Holy Trinity.
Holiness is, first of all, God’s recognition of the righteous life lived by a person or his martyrdom for the sake of faith. And only then – by the Church. Elevation to sainthood without the will of God and during life is a sin. Priests are spiritual fathers, but not holy fathers. The author of the article gets a bad mark for an unlearned lesson!
About the “strong priest”. Admitting that you don’t know everything is not strength, but a statement of fact. There's nothing powerful about it. For no one knows everything, no matter how burdened he is with scientific degrees and all kinds of ranks and titles. The strength of a priest is not in his omniscience, but in the strength of his faith and his loyalty to God. The power of a priest lies in the tears of his parishioners during the service, when the soul yearns for God from his words and the singing of the choir. The power of the priest is that a person humbly and reverently kneels before his Creator when he proclaims: “We deservedly thank the Lord!”, even though everyone around him is standing with his hands behind his back. The power of the priest is to give confession before communion to EVERYONE who comes to God for confession and communion - even if this significantly increases the duration of the liturgy - because he fulfills his duty to God and to people. The power of a priest is to give a person a blessing for a godly deed, even if he is rejected by everyone, and to allow him to kiss his hand - for through it the parishioner kisses the hand of God. The power of a priest is that through his service he reveals the very recesses of a person’s soul and lifts him to God. This is what the priesthood is for.
But this power is not available to those who look at the Church as another “clearing” for unfolding profitable business and those who come to Church “just in case.” For them, the priest is the subject of close attention in order to discover something in him that can be criticized, ridiculed, slandered. It doesn’t matter where - on some garbage forum on the Internet or in a “respectable magazine for specialists”. And if it burns out, then make some money on it.
A few words about the misunderstanding of love - both by the author and by those characters who “looked for it in the Church.” The same consumer immaturity. Can a person who has not found love in himself see it in others? Has God really endowed some with more of his Love than others - so much so that you have to look for it somewhere other than in yourself, in your heart? And having not found it, but rather, without making the slightest effort to do this, screaming at the top of your lungs at every corner and scattering leaflets: “I was deceived!” And in this offended cry one can clearly hear the same raking “GIVE!” Church and the path to God is work on oneself, and not a place for free distribution of kisses and hugs. Did the author confuse the “visitors” she defends? Orthodox Church with a charismatic sect?
And a priest is not always obliged to exude love. Sometimes it is necessary to remind a sinner of his debts to the Almighty. About the upcoming Judgment and the fear of God. The mere mention of the Judgment should cause awe. But man does not know the fear of God and instead chooses to continue sinning. And what? He condemns the priest. Instead of repentance, there is a new sin, which the author helpfully covers up with the “subtly noticed” lack of psychological preparedness of the priest and his allegedly flawed personal qualities. Is that the point?
A superficial glance skims over the external without penetrating deep...
Forgetting about the beam in his own eye, a parishioner dissatisfied with the priest looks for and will certainly find a lot of shortcomings and sins in the priest - both real and imaginary. But does this make sense? Everyone is responsible before God only for their sins. Pointing at the priest to justify your inaction regarding your sins at the Judgment of God will not work. And let it be known to any jealous appraiser of God’s servants who reads these lines, that in addition to the commandments of the Lord common to all, there are also the Rules of the Apostles for ALL members of the Church (http://lib.pravmir.ru/library/readbook/1311#part_13887). There are 85 of them. They regulate relations within the Church itself and external relations between the Church and the world. The Rules of the Apostles apply to bishops, priests, and all other ministers of the Church, as well as Orthodox laity - including those very ones who “drop in” to the Church. Violating these rules is also a sin.
It is wrong to identify a priest with the Church and God. A priest is first of all a person. And by nature he is just as sinful as the parishioner. And yet, the priest differs from the parishioner - in the Church (including outside the temple) it is he who represents God - according to the right given to him according to the succession from the Apostles themselves. You may not like him, he may even be antipathetic. But a priest is not the whole Church, and certainly not God. To identify a priest with the entire Holy Church and transfer one’s attitude towards him to it means to think at the level of the plinth. But this is exactly what a “mentally normal person” thinks in the author’s article, about whom she cares so much and for whose sake all this psychological pseudo-Orthodox fuss was started, who in essence is a spiritual sloth who comes to the Church to gratify his many-sided consumer greed.
The author has an overly simplified approach to repentance, very far from the truly Orthodox one. Especially regarding abortion. Even the best deeds cannot replace repentance. The holy fathers of the Church speak about this, the prayers of which the author, apparently due to his great busyness in training seminarians, did not have time to get to, although it is with them that the day of every truly Orthodox person begins: “Let faith be imputed to me instead of works. My God, do not discover any works that will in no way justify me. But may my faith prevail in place of all, may it answer, may it justify me, may it show me to be a partaker of Your eternal glory.” And where there is faith, there is repentance. There is no Orthodox faith without repentance.
God only accepts repentance. Otherwise, any sin could be covered up with “good deeds,” or even simply “covered up” with a generous sacrifice. Human standards are not applicable to God and His Court. God doesn't bargain. Repentance, as something one-time and not too burdensome, so as not to “strengthen the destructive feeling of guilt,” is not suitable. “Destructive guilt” is a crafty Jesuit fabrication of a mental theorist who is not even close to repentance.
Abortion is a grave crime before God, and hoping for an easy deliverance from this sin is frivolous naivety and very dangerous for the salvation of the soul. Only God Himself can free a person from the sin of abortion. Personally. And only God will let the repentant know that He has forgiven the sin of abortion to the sinner-child killer, and these include both the female “mother” and the male “father”, as well as everyone who participated and assisted in the abortion, including the so-called “doctors” "who had an abortion. GOD and NO ONE else. And if for this you have to repent in burning tears and snot every day throughout your life, then this is the will of God. There is no other way to forgiveness: “Rise up, damned man, to God, remembering your sins, falling to the Creator, crying and groaning; He, who is merciful, will give you the mind to know His will.” (Canon of repentance to our Lord Jesus Christ).
Although, however, the author has his own version of “resolving the issue”, which is happily accepted by a sinful society mired in abortions - why strain yourself in repentance, destroying yourself with a “destructive feeling of guilt”, if “deeds” can correct everything. And then sin again and “correct” again. Will not work.
Substitute orthodox prayers and the patristic penitential canons, not to mention the Gospel, home-grown advice from a housewife with a “psychological” bias (or even a diploma) is criminal. To confuse seminarians and readers means to push them from the path of God’s commandments onto the path of evil wisdom and sin.
About redemption. Conscience is not a corrupt trader. Conscience is the voice of God in man. And not everything can be “redeemed.” And what can be redeemed, as a rule, is redeemed with blood. Moreover, exclusively OWN. As Christ Himself did. If the author means in his article and advises his readers and clients during consultations, it is in this spirit to redeem what “needs to be redeemed” - i.e. to atone for one’s sins with blood, then the question arises, who is the adviser? If these reasonings are open trade with God (I am good deeds to You, and You are remission of sins to me), then they are insignificant and sinful.
About errors. Whether we can correct a mistake by sinning in relation to a person, or whether we can no longer correct anything is, of course, important. But it's not just a matter of "fixing a mistake." If the author means by “fix” - to return something taken without asking to its place, to glue what was broken, to ask the person for forgiveness for the offense caused, then this is catastrophically insufficient.
Although it’s quite enough for a psychologist. Having convinced a person that he will die without him, it is then important for the psychologist to convince the client that not everything is as bad as it seems to him, that he himself is not so bad, despite all his madness and lawlessness. That it is enough, according to a certain “author’s method,” to FORGIVE YOURSELF, and not to blame yourself, so as not to fall out of the “circle of life” and continue your victorious march to the “heights of success and well-being.”
And if you look more closely at what psychology does to a person, then you can, without digging too deeply, see that it gives him what he WANTS TO HEAR. Psychology is the prostitute of society.
Unfortunately, it has also penetrated into the Orthodox Church. And, judging by the article in question, those using its services, with the connivance of the church authorities, are none other than seminarians, future priests, and maybe those already serving in parishes - confessors of repentant sinners standing before God. About 400 years ago, such priests, in the best case scenario for them, would have been anathematized for apostasy, excommunicated and exiled forever to a place where even now a person can only live on a rotational basis - despite all the achievements of civilization. I will keep silent about the worst options so as not to cause some kind of non-positive “dissonance” in the reader - cognitive or worse.
The services of a psychologist are a temptation for a priest. God tempts us in different ways to strengthen us in faith. And so too. And at the same time, this is a temptation for the psychologist himself - God gives him a chance to accept correct solution and the ability to stop on time. This is how God's Providence works - the test of choice. Everyone has their limits. The Church is the Body of Christ and there is no place in it for mental fabrications based on memorized scenarios. In the Church, like nowhere else, a person feels his unity with God - with his heart and with his whole soul. And for this, man and God do not need any psychological techniques: The Creator and creation are one.
And with regards to correcting mistakes through atonement... When committing any sin against his neighbor, a person first of all sins against God and all of Heaven. Any sin, no matter what it manifests itself in, is INGRACE towards the Creator. Therefore, “correcting” and “asking for forgiveness” from people is NOT ENOUGH - you need to REPENT TO GOD and beg forgiveness from HIM. And not lying on the psychoanalyst’s couch, through a sweet slumber, listening to lulling tales so sweet for him about the “healing power of self-forgiveness.” The easy paths only lead to hell.
Any professional psychologist is, first of all, a COMMERCIALIST with his own established practice - office, clientele, marketing plan and methods of increasing clientele, i.e. money making machine. In psychology, you won’t be able to make money if you tell your client the truth about him, which you also need to be able to see. But usually a superficial look, limited by templates - taken from textbooks or personally concocted in vain narcissism - does not allow us to see the truth that lies on the surface. As a result, the word spoken by the psychologist to the client is a lie. For there is no God in him. And if there is, it is only to justify “ psychological method" For cover. What we are seeing...
You cannot serve two masters at the same time - both God and mammon. This is how psychology leads a person away from the true path - we know where.
And the idea expressed in the article that a “wise and tactful priest” who has noticed problems with his parishioners should “advise them to turn to a specialist” (in the sense of a psychologist) is the author’s undisguised statement about the powerlessness of God and the omnipotence of the psychologist. Isn't it absurd? Slyly philosophizing in his office, rented in a business incubator, the “specialist” turns out to be stronger than God - he can heal the soul, and at the same time the body of a person, for they are inseparably connected during his lifetime, by some of his own methods, usually his own, and from this is not as cheap as free confession before the Creator, which relieves the soul from defilement and gives healing to the body. But the defilement of the soul is not a psychological or commercial concept. Tears of repentance are also rare in psychological practice. But discussions about cognitive dissonance, endogenous depression and other highly wise nonsense, the definition of which the “experts” themselves are confused about, are a frequent guest in their reasoning: before setting someone’s brains straight, they need to be thoroughly powdered.
Just don’t consider everyone but yourself idiots. What is this quoted paragraph worth, in which the author advises the priest how to behave with a parishioner: “And, finally, it is worth paying attention to the symptoms of psychopathology and mental illness. The same endogenous depression, which should not be confused with despondency, is, in a sense, the same metabolic disorder as diabetes. Only the balance is disrupted not of those hormones that affect the body, but of neurotransmitters that affect consciousness, the nervous system. And if a person’s level of serotonin and dopamine has dropped, then, of course, the Lord can miraculously heal, but the position of the Church, nevertheless, is not to tempt the Lord and not to refuse medical help.”
As I understand it, before confession, the priest must now measure the penitent’s serotonin and dopamine levels to see if they have dropped, and to be sure, ask him to bring urine and stool tests with him – you never know...
Let me gently remind the respected author that it is not the Lord who is tempted by man. This is absolute nonsense. The creation cannot tempt the Creator. Personally, I have a strong temptation to question the author’s bold statement about any involvement in Orthodoxy. Because you have to try very hard to forget the prayer “Our Father”, given to humanity by Christ, which clearly says: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.” Is it not because it is forgotten because it talks about the evil one? And I very much doubt that the position of the Church - no matter what issue - can be heard in the context of “not tempting the Lord.” Such blunders are unforgivable for someone who has undertaken to teach the Orthodox priesthood wisdom.
To train a priest with psychological techniques means to distort the essence of his ministry. Psychology and all its techniques, including Jesuit NLP techniques, work from the mind. The priest is from the heart. Sin is born in the mind, but not in the heart of a person. You can't connect the incompatible. A priest cannot be a psychologist in the sense that society puts into this word. The priest is a shepherd who leads to the Savior through repentance. His calling is to convey the Word of God to the heart of man, but not to tempt his mind with crafty, florid wisdom gleaned from psychological workshops and cases born in the wombs of business centers.
And finally, about the main thing. Think about the title of the article, which reads: “What we consider a sin sometimes has a medical reason.” WHAT IS THIS?! If you have not understood by now, then this is the author’s programmatic statement about the revision of the Gospel and the denial of the truth of the Word of God. Which Orthodox Christian – the real one, not the mummers – can decide to do this? Isn’t this madness?.. As Jesus showed during his earthly ministry, ANY illness is a CONSEQUENCE of a person’s SIN. ANY. With no exceptions. Nothing happens to a person outside the will of God. Isn’t this why the Lord healed the crippled and hopelessly sick, and raised the dead - so that people would understand the destructiveness of sin and the omnipotence of the Heavenly Father? And wasn’t this why, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, he gave the ability to heal illnesses to his Apostles? Isn’t it for this reason that He ascended the Cross?
Another view of an Orthodox person on this issue takes him beyond the boundaries of Orthodoxy. After such a title, everything that the author wrote in the article can be called only one word - HERESY.
A separate question is for the administrators of those Orthodox resources on which such heresy is published: what god do you serve? It doesn’t hurt to delve into the meaning of at least the HEADLINES of the articles proposed for publication.
Even a cursory acquaintance with Natalya Skuratovskaya’s other “works” evokes a strong feeling of their extreme “toxicity” - to use her terminology. Those. poisoning, or rather, undermining and destroying the Orthodox Church. Again, its very basis is the priesthood. The far-fetchedness and stereotypedness of the problems of the Church and the “methods” for solving them that were just made up from thin air (this is the most decent thing that comes to mind), mixed with something equally superficial – purely rational, mental, but often covered up with quotations from the patristic heritage and for the sake of persuasiveness theological terminology - understanding the essence of Orthodoxy and flavored with a good portion of pride and vanity, and in addition a poorly hidden hostile attitude towards the Holy Orthodox Church, expressed in disdain for the priesthood, cause irreparable harm to the ministers of the Church and the Orthodox laity who accepted all this pseudo-scientific Jesuit godless "anti-sectarian" nonsense at face value.
Without own work over his sins as a parishioner, not a single priest can help him - even one grown “from scratch” from a test tube in a business incubator according to Natalya Skuratovskaya’s method. God must be sought not in the temple, and not in some elusive “visionary” priest, in search of whom many spend half their lives traveling all over Rus', like pagans looking for THEMSELVES a new idol. You must look for God IN YOURSELF, in your heart, but not in your mind. He does not hide and has never hidden from a person. God is everywhere—the whole world is God. And there is no need for intermediaries between God and man. God will answer any question of His creation that seeks Him, and will help solve any problem - for those who not only pray, but also wait and hope to hear an answer from Him. The Temple of God is a place where a person, who, with the help of God and his Guardian Angel, has ALREADY done the proper spiritual and prayerful work of repentance on himself, can, having sworn allegiance to God on the Gospel and on the Cross, sincerely confess his sins with the intention of not sinning anymore and receiving their remission through ANY priest this volume right from God and partake of the Holy Gifts eternal life. The priest is only an assistant from God, but the worker in correcting his sinful life is the man HIMSELF.
***
It’s too sweet a piece of pie for many to lay their furry paw, clawed paw, or even a delicate paw with manicure on glued-on claws on the Holy Orthodox Church, the priesthood and parishioners. And the entry point was found - psychological consultations. Slowly and gradually, through parishioners, accompanying secular structures, powerful secular and church offices, the tentacles of society sticky with greed, finally latched onto the holy of holies of the Church - the priests - bearers of the Apostolic Succession. And with saliva on their lips, aggressively and “reasonably” - on tables and flowcharts, they now prove their right to tell those to whom God has entrusted the secret of confession and absolution how to confess the repentant.Are these not the new apostles?.. Quite possibly. But who is their god?
- White Horvat - 10.25.2016 20:23
“We need less fear and more sincerity in our inner world.”
Here it is, that very word.
Fields marked with an asterisk must be filled out.
